■K 


^ 


.%^ 


m- 


No. 


MBRARY 

PRI]\C'ETOj¥,  H.  J. 

S  A  M  I '  K  1.    A  a  N  Ji  W  , 

yn       ^-  ^.  "I      1'  M  1  1.  <   u  K.  I,  I'  H  I  A.    FA. 

Lrt/er       O     "^  ^ 


IBV  670  .E5  1838 
Emory,  John,  1789-1835. 
jThe  Episcopal  controversy 


reviewed 


.^' 


IT   ^  y    1 


THE 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY 


REVIEWED. 


BY    JOHN    EMORY,    D.  D. 

LATE   ONE   OF  THE    BISHOPS   OF  THE   METHODIST   EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


EDITED   BY    HIS   SON, 


FROM    AN    UNFINISHED    MANUSCRIPT. 


NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED  BY  T.  MASON  AND  G.  LANE, 

FOR    TrtE    METHODIST    EPISCOPAI,    CHURCH,    AT    THE    CONFERENCE    OFFICE, 
200   MULBERRY-STREET. 


/.  Collord,  Printer. 
1838. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  llie  year  1S3S,  Ijy 
T.  Mason  &  G.  Lane,  in  the  clerk's  ollice  of  the  Southern 
District  of  New-York. 


PREFACE  TO  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY, 

BY    THE     EDITOR. 


The  late  period  at  which  this  work  is  presented  to 
the  pubhc,  and  the  unfinished  state  in  which  it  appears, 
will  be  best  explained  by  a  brief  statement  of  the  cir- 
cumstances attending  its  composition  and  publication. 
About  ten  or  twelve  years  since,  when  the  economy  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  assailed  by  foes 
from  within,  the  author  of  the  present  essay  undertook 
its  defence  in  a  tract  entitled  "  A  Defence  of  our  Fathers, 
and  of  the  original  Organization  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,"  &c.  That  work  passed  through  several 
editions,  and  as  the  demand  seemed  likely  to  continue, 
the  publishers  requested  the  author  to  prepare  a  revised 
edition.  This  he  appears,  at  one  time,  to  have  contem- 
plated, as  a  copy  was  found  interleaved,  apparently  for 
that  purpose.  Subsequently,  however,  he  seems  to 
have  been  satisfied,  from  his  own  observation  and  the 
opinion  of  others,  that,  inasmuch  as  the  controversy 
which  had  elicited  the  original  work  was  dying  away, 
while  the  attacks  upon  the  organization  of  the  church, 
both  openly  and  secretly,  were  perhaps  increasing  in 
other  quarters,  it  would  be  better  to  prepare  an  entirely 
new  work,  in  which  the  government  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  should  be  defended,  not  merely 
against  the  cavils  of  a  particular  party  or  sect,  but 
against  all  opposition  ;  and  its  entire  accordance  with 
Scriptural  authority  and  primitive  usage  be  established 
by  a  full  investigation  of  the  subject  of  episcopacy  in 
general,  and  of  Methodist  episcopacy  in  particular. 
Such  was  the  plan  of  the  present  work  :  the  sudden 
death  of  the  author  left  it  but  partially  and  imperfectly 
executed.     The  manuscript  contained  only   a  discus- 


IV  PREFACE. 

sion  of  the  subject  of  episcopacy  in  general,  in  a  reply- 
to  "  An  Essay  on  the  Invalidity  of  Presbyterian  Ordina- 
tipn,  by  John  Esten  Cooke,  M.  D.,"  and  a  part  of  a  reply 
to  a  tract  entitled  "  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,"  by 
Dr.  H.  U.  Onderdonk,  then  assistant  bishop  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. Whether  it  was  intended  to  notice  any  other 
works  on  the  opposite  side,  may  be  doubted,  as  the 
first  afforded  an  opportunity  to  examine  the  argument 
from  the  Fathers,  the  second  the  argument  from  Scrip- 
ture. Why  an  answer  to  these  two  works,  one  of 
which  was  published  in  1829,  and  the  other  in  1830, 
was  delayed  until  1835,  the  year  of  the  author's  death, 
none  will  inquire  who  have  any  knowledge  of  his  ardu- 
ous and  incessant  engagements,  first,  in  establishing  the 
Methodist  Book  Concern  on  the  basis  on  which  it  has 
since  stood,  and  subsequently,  in  discharging  the  still 
more  responsible  and  absorbing  duties  of  the  episcopate ; 
especially  w^hen  it  is  farther  considered  that  it  would 
take  some  time  to  satisfy  him,  that  arguments,  which  ap- 
peared to  him  so  untenable,  could  ever  have  possessed 
the  influence  which  they  seem  to  have  exerted  on  some 
minds. 

This  may  suffice  in  regard  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  essay  was  written.  It  may  be  expected 
that  some  explanation  will  also  be  given  of  the  delay  of 
its  publication.  To  some,  however,  and  certainly  to  the 
editor  himself,  a  more  interesting  inquiry  may  be,  why, 
since  it  is  acknowledged  to  be  imperfect,  it  is  published 
at  all.  Immediately  after  the  author's  decease  the 
manuscript  was  examined,  and  being  found  incomplete 
was  laid  aside,  not  to  meet  the  rude  gaze  of  those  who 
can  pardon  no  imperfection  however  unavoidable,  but  as 
a  memorial  of  the  last  efforts  of  one,  every  relic  of  whom 
was  precious.  Some  time  after,  however,  several  inti- 
mate friends  of  the  deceased,  of  high  standing  in  the 
church,  desired  to  read  the  manuscript,  and  after  pe- 


PREFACE.  V 

nising  it  strongly  urged  its  publication,  as  being  suffi- 
ciently complete  to  subserve  the  interests  of  the  church. 
If,  therefore,  the  reputation  of  his  father,  or  the  cause 
of  the  church,  should  suffer  by  the  publication  of  an 
unfinished  essay,  the  editor's  apology  must  be,  that  his 
own  inclination  has  yielded  to  the  requests  of  those 
who,  both  by  their  official  station  and  superior  judg- 
ment, had  a  claim  upon  his  deference. 

The  principal  object  of  the  editor  in  discharging  the 
duty  thus  imposed  upon  him,  has  been  to  follow  the  ori- 
ginal, without  any  additions  or  alterations  other  than 
those  which  were  necessary,  and  which  are  marked  as 
such.  This  scrupulous  accuracy  has  occasionally  led 
to  repetition,  wdiich  by  no  means  characterized  the  au- 
thor's usual  style.  The  careful  reader,  however,  will 
observe  that  this  occurs  principally  in  the  quotations ; 
and  will  find  a  sufficient  explanation  in  the  fact,  that 
these  quotations  were  not  written  out  in  the  manuscript, 
but  only  referred  to,  so  that  the  repetitions  would  not 
appear  until  the  work  was  prepared  for  the  press. 

As  to  the  subject  matter  itself  of  the  essay,  it  will, 
perhaps,  become  the  editor  to  say  but  little.  There  are 
two  thoughts,  however,  which  he  would  desire  the 
reader  to  bear  in  mind  while  reading  this  or  any  similar 
tract.  The  first  is,  that  no  arginnent  is  of  any  avail  in 
the  controversy  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  un- 
less it  prove  not  merely  that  episcopacy  is  a  proper  form 
of  church  government,  (for  this  she  herself  asserts,  and 
adopts  it  as  her  own,)  but  also,  that  no  other  form  of 
government  is  admissible ;  nay,  more,  no  other  form  of 
episcopacy  than  that  which  is  founded  upon  a  distinct 
order  of  bishops,  deriving  their  authority  through  an  un- 
interrupted succession  from  the  apostles. 

The  second  thought  is,  that  the  manner  in  which 
efforts  are  now  made  to  establish  the  high-church  claims 
on  the  foundation  of  Scripture,  is  calculated  to  lead  to 


VI  PREFACE. 


great  evil.     Not  that  we  object  to  the  attempt  to  test 
the  question  by  Scripture,  (for  undoubtedly  this  is  the 
only  criterion  that  should  be   admitted   by  Protestant 
Christians,   and  we   only  regret  that  high-churchmen 
have  not  submitted  to  it  before,)  but  to  the  mode  of 
carrying  it  out,  by  making  incidental  hints  and  obscure 
intimations  the  basis  of  what  are  alleged  to  be  import- 
ant doctrines.     This  course,  (which  has  been  adopted 
m  regard  to  many  other  dogmas,  and  with  a  zeal  pro- 
portioned to  the  deficiency  of  evidence  for  them,)  what- 
ever success  it  may  promise  at  first,  cannot  fail  to  be 
ultimately   pernicious   to   rehgion  in   general,    and   of 
course  to  the  particular  party  which  pursues  it.     And  it 
might  be  well  for  ultraists  of  every  denomination  to 
consider  what  would  be  gained  by  securing  the  sanc- 
tion of  Scripture,  if,  in  the  very  attempt,  we  impair  the 
authority  of  Scripture  itself ;  like  shipwrecked  mariners, 
who,  by  their  imprudent  eagerness  sink  the  long  boat  on 
which  they  fondly  relied  for  escape.     In  conclusion,  the  . 
editor  regrets  the  necessity  of  taking  any  part  in  those 
controversies   by    which    the    Christian   church  is  dis- 
tracted and  her  strength  divided,  at  a  time  when  all  lier 
forces  ought  to  be  combined  against  the  armies  of  the 
alien.     But  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  this  dispute 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  stands  on  the  defen- 
sive.    She  interferes  not  with  the  claims  of  other  deno- 
minations to  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  spiritual 
body  of  Christ,  but  she  dare  not  surrender  her  own. 
She,  with  others,  now  stands  where  the  early  gentile 
Christians  stood  in  opposing  the  Jewish  bigotry  of  the 
temple,  and  where  the  ancestors  of  the  present  Protest- 
ant high-churchmen  stood  in  resisting  the  usurpations  of 
papal  Rome  ;   nor  will  she  abandon  this  post  of  honour 
until    cxclusionists    of   every   class    have    surrendered 
their  peculiar  claims  to  the  covenant  mercies  of  God. 
Dickinson  College,  May  25,1838.  R.E. 


EPISCOPACY. 


The  field  over  whicli  the  episcopal  controversy  has 
been  spread  is  one  so  wide,  and  marked  by  the  tracks  of 
those  who  have  traversed  it  in  so  many  various  and 
even  cross  directions,  that  he  who  would  thread  its 
mazes  without  danger  of  missing  the  narrow  path  of 
truth  will  require,  to  use  a  phrase  of  Dr.  Jortiti's,  more 
than  Ariadne's  clew.  This  consideration  of  itself,  not 
to  mention  others  which  might  be  named,  would  deter 
me  from  my  present  undertaking,  (which  I  most  sin- 
cerely wish  were  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  both 
more  leisure  and  aljility  for  the  task,)  were  it  not  that 
the  continued,  or,  more  properly,  the  recently  renewed 
attacks,  both  public  and  private,  of  those  who  set  up  a 
claim  of  divine  right  to  monopolize  all  ecclesiastical 
authority,  and  even  the  covenant  mercies  of  our  Saviour 
himself,  oblige  us  to  expose  the  futility  and  the  arro- 
gance of  their  pretensions,  and  to  vindicate  the  grounds 
on  which,  having  received  help  from  God,  we  continue 
to  claim  a  place,  be  it  even  the  humblest,  among  the 
lawful  churches  of  Christ.  In  the  prosecution  of  this 
design,  earnestly  imploring,  both  for  myself  and  the 
reader,  the  guidance  of  a  safer  clew  than  Ariadne's — 
that  wisdom  from  above  whic?i  is  promised  to  all  that 
lack  and  ask — I  purpose  to  divide  the  following  tract 
into  two  parts. 

In  the  first,  I  shall  consider  the  subject  of  episcopacy 
generally ;  and  in  the  second,  that  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  particular."^ 

*  [The  reader  will  perceive  that  this  second  part  of  the  author's  desiga 
was  never  acc-o:npliyhe(l,  and  the  first  has  been  left  incumi)lcte.  The  author's 
views,  however,  of  Methodist  episcopacy  may  be  in  some  degree  gathered 
from  his  *'  Defence  of  our  Fathers." — Ed.] 


8  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 


OF  EPISCOPACY  IN  GENERAL. 

Claiming,  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  does, 
to  be  not  only  a  lawful  church  of  Christ,  but  a  lawful 
episcopal  church,  it  is  plain  that  our  controversy  is  not 
with  episcopacy  itself,  as  a  form  of  church  polity. 
Our  opponents,  indeed,  evince  a  great  inclination  to  the 
begging  of  this  question,  and  too  many  among  our- 
selves inconsistently,  though  inadvertently,  strengthen 
them  in  the  sophism,  by  conceding  to  them,  both  in 
conversation  and  in  writing,  the  exclusive  title  of 
Episcopalians.  This  ought  to  be  corrected,  and  the 
various  churches  of  Christendom  distinguished  by  their 
proper  titles.  At  least  each  should  not  be  forgetful 
of  its  own  proper  designation,  nor  yield  the  undue 
influence  of  even  the  exclusive  name  to  those  who 
would  and  do  make  unmerited  advantage  of  it:  for,  as 
has  been  well  remarked,  though  names  are  but  sounds, 
yet  those  who  are  conversant  in  the  history  of  man- 
kind will  readily  allow  that  they  have  greater  influence 
on  the  opinions  of  the  generality  of  men  than  most 
people  are  aware  of.^  The  episcopal  form  of  church 
polity  is  ours  also.  We  admit  and  adopt  episcopacy. 
We  admit  its  agreeableness  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Christian  church  in  the  apostolical  age.  But  still  thfe 
question  remains.  What  is  episcopacij?  Not  what  is  it 
that   Papists   and  other  high-church  exclusionists  are 

*  [The  reader  will  be  pleased  to  see,  in  this  connection,  the  opinion  of 
Coleridge  on  this  subject,  as  expressed  in  note  56  of  the  "  Aids  to  Reflec- 
tion," where  he  is  objecting  to  the  ordinary  application  of  the  words  Unita- 
rian and  Catholic : — 

"  Convinced,  as  I  am,  that  current  appellations  are  never  wholly  indifferent 
or  inert ;  and  that,  when  employed  to  express  the  characteristic  belief  or 
object  of  a  religious  confederacy,  they  exert  on  the  many  a  great  and  con- 
stant, though  insensible,  influence, — I  cannot  but  fear  that  in  adopting  the 
former  ['the  name  wliich  the  party  itself  has  taken  up']  I  may  be  sacrificing 
the  interests  of  truth  beyond  what  the  duties  of  courtesy  can  demand  or 
justify." — Ed.] 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  9 

pleased  to  denominate  thus  at  this  day, — but  what  is 
episcopacy  in  the  New  Testament  sense  of  the  term  or 
of  the  thing  ?  To  the  pure  and  sufficient  light  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  on  this  subject,  our  high-church  oppo- 
nents generally  seem  to  think  it  necessary  to  add  that 
also  of  the  writings  of  the  Christian  fathers,  as  they  are 
styled.  Without  resorting  to  this  source,  indeed,  it  is 
absolutely  impossible  for  them- — even  those  few  of  thena 
who  profess  to  confine  the  argument  to  the  ground  of 
Scripture — to  complete  their  chain.  Without  this  an 
essential  link  is  w^anting,  as  I  shall  hereafter  take  occa- 
sion to  show  in  regard  to  a  modern  writer  of  this  class. 
But,  although  we  deny  that  there  is  any  necessity  for 
this  resort,  in  any  inquiry  regarding  any  point  of  essen- 
tial Christian  doctrine,  morals,  ordinances,  or  church 
polity, — believing  as  we  do,  and  as  all  Protestants  ought 
to  do,  in  the  perfection  and  entire  sufficiency  of  Scrip- 
ture alone  on  every  such  question, — yet  I  shall  not 
object  to  follow  some  of  them  even  into  this  branch  of 
the  inquiry, — satisfied  as  I  am  that  their  cause  can  gain, 
no  just  support  from  this  collateral  branch  of  evidence, — 
so  long  as  it  shall  be  confined  to  the  Christian  writings 
of  the  age  immediately  succeeding  that  of  the  apostles, 
and  of  which  neither  the  genuineness  nor  the  integrity 
can  be  fairly  questioned.  By  the  aid  of  these  lights, 
my  object  is  to  review^  the  grounds  which  have  been 
taken  in  reg-ard  to  the  essential  constitution  of  a  lawful 
episcopal  church  of  Christ.  And  if,  where  so  much  may 
be  said,  and  has  been  said,  by  learned,  wise,  and  good 
men,  on  opposite  sides,  there  be  a  strong  presumption 
of  probability,  as  in  most  similar  cases,  that  truth  lies  in 
the  middle  and  not  in  either  extreme,  I  trust  to  be  able 
to  show  that  it  is  precisely  this  ground — a  ground  both 
liberal  and  safe — that  is  occupied  by  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

The  writers  on  the  high-church  side,  in  general,  make 
up  their  issue  between  diocesan  episcopacy,  in  their 


10  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

sense  of  it,  as  an  intrinsically  and  essentially  distinct 
and  superior  third  order  by  divine  appointment,  without 
which  there  can  be  no  true  Christian  church  nor  valid 
Christian  ministry  or  ordinances,  and  parity — that  is  to 
say,  the  presbyterian  doctrine,  strictly,  of  but  one  order 
of  Christian  ministers.  Let  it  be  distinctly  understood, 
however,  that  this  is  not  the  issue  between  them  and  us. 
We  do  indeed  admit  the  validity  of  presbyterian  ordina- 
tion ;  but  not  the  presbyterian  doctrine  of  parity.  We 
cannot  feel  at  liberty  to  go  so  far  toward  this  as  even 
the  present  assistant  bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  Dr.  H. 
U.  Onderdonk*  We  dare  not  say  with  him,  "  If  we 
cannot  authenticate  the  claims  of  the  episcopal  office, 
"we  will  surrender  those  of  our  deacons,  and  let  all 
jiower  be  confined  to  the  one  oflice  of  presbyters."!  By 
no  means.  The  Scriptural  evidence  for  the  order  of 
deacons,  as  an  order  of  ministers  distinct  from  that  of 
presbyters  or  bishops,  is  too  plain  to  be  thus  lightl}'- 
treated.  The  directions  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  (1 
Tim.  iii,  8-13,)  not  to  mention  other  passages,  are  too 
explicit  and  solemn  to  allow  us  to  surrender  this  order 
in  any  event.  Let  it  stand  on  its  own  ground,  whether 
we  can  authenticate  that  of  bishops  or  not ;  "for  they 
that  have  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well,  purchase  to 
themselves  a  good  degree,"  to  which  their  title  ought 
not  to  be  made  dependent  on  the  claims  of  others  to 
any  other  degree. 

I  ought,  indeed,  to  do  the  last-quoted  author  the  justice 
to  say,  and  I  do  it  with  pleasure,  that  he  subscribes  not 
to  the  extreme  opinion  that  episcopacy  is  essential  to  the 
being  of  a  church. t  I  wish  that  what  he  says  in  some 
other  parts  of  the  tract  cited  could  fairly  be  reconciled 
with  this  candid  and  commendable  concession,  which 

*  [The  reader  will  recollect  that  this  was  written  before  the  death  of  tho 
then  bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  Dr.  White. — Ed.] 

t  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,  p.  11.  |Ibid.,  p.  5. 


iLPISCOrAL    COXTrvOVKRSY    UEVIEWED.  11 

his  sense  of  truth,  aft.'r  all  his  iuvestiirations,  compelled 
him  to  make.  In  one  respect  he  seems  to  go  far  beyond 
even  the  venerable  senior  l)ishop  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  whose  assistant  he  is.  Dr.  White, "^^ 
with  that  leading  champion  of  high  church,  Hooker, 
distinctly  admitted  the  plea  of  ''the  exigence  of  ne- 
cessity," for  departing  from  the  fancied  apostolical  suc- 
cession in  the  high-church  sense ;  and  I  have  not  un- 
derstood that  this  admission  has  ever  been  retracted, 
although  the  pamphlet  containing  it,  which  M-as  origin- 
ally published  in  1783,  was  republished  in  the  city  of 
his  own  residence,  under  the  auspices  of  some  of  his 
own  e[)iscopal  charge,  within  a  few  years  past,  and 
although  the  authority  of  his  o[)inion,  as  an  arcjumentum 
ad  hominem,  has  been  repeatedly  referred  to  in  this  con- 
troversy. His  assistant.  Dr.  O.,  on  the  contrarj',  seems 
to  think  that  his  (Dr.  O.'s)  essay  settles  the  point  that 
episcopacy,  in  his  sense  of  it,  is  a  "  divhie  appoint- 
ment," and  then  affirms  that,  from  such  an  appointment, 
"  no  plea  can  be  strong  enough  to  release  us."t  The 
word  "no"  he  himself  makes  emphatic,  as  is  here  done. 
Indeed,  on  tliis  ground,  and  in  the  same  note,  p.  40,  he 
seems  to  suppose — where  the  sacraments  cannot  be  ob- 
tained through  such  an  apostolic  mxinistrj^,  that  is  to 
say,  through  the  high-church  succession  contended  for — 
it  would  be  Ijetter  to  dispense  with  them  altogether,  as 
being  "not  absolutely,  but  only  generally,  necessary  to 
salvation."  Does  this  writer  then  really  think  that  there 
is  just  as  plain  Scriptural  evidence,  (for  to  this  single 
ground  of  argument  he  sets  out  with  professing  strictly 
to  confine  his  essay,)  of  an  unbroken  series  of  high- 
church  bishops  from  the  apostles  down  to  himself,  by 
divine  appointment, — not  excepting  Alex.  VI.,  of  Rome, 
and  other  similar  liidvs  of  the  chain, — and  that  conform- 
ity to  this  pattern  is  of  universal  and  perpetual  obliga- 

*  Case  of  the  Episr.opal  Cliiirc-lics  in  the  United  States  Considered, 
t  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,  p.  40. 


12  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

tion,  as  that  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  are  of  divme  mstitution  and  thus  bindmg-?  It 
may  be  answered,  perhaps,  that  the  very  supposition  of 
*'  Scriptural"  evidence  of  such  a  thing  involves  an  utter 
and  palpable  absurdity.  I  grant  it.  But  who  is  it  that 
gives  occasion  for  the  absurdity  1  Does  not  the  writer 
alluded  to  place  the  obligation  of  conforming  to  a  minis- 
try claiming  exclusive  title  through  that  alleged  succes- 
sion, on  a  ground  not  merely  equal,  but  even  superior  to 
that  which  binds  us  to  the  observance  of  the  sacraments 
themselves  ?  And  yet  he  himself  concedes,  in  the  com- 
mencement of  his  essay,  that  no  argument  is  worth 
taking  into  the  account  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing 
on  the  Scriptural  evidence  of  episcopacy ; — nay,  that 
episcopacy  itself  (and  certainly  then  the  prelatical  suc- 
cession) is  not  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church.  The 
high-church  succession  against  the  sacraments !  And 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  a  Protestant,  thinks,  if  we  cannot  have 
both,  that  we  ought  rather  to  give  up  the  latter !  Is 
that  succession  then  "  absolutely"  necessary  to  salvation 
or  only  "generally"  so,  on  his  own  principles?  Is  the 
evidence  that  diocesan  bishops,  in  the  high-church 
sense,  should  uninterruptedly  succeed  to  the  office  and 
powers  of  the  apostles,  and  the  observance  of  this  order 
in  the  churches  be  imperatively  binding,  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, through  all  time,  as  plain  from  Scripture, 
(the  only  ground  of  argument  on  the  question  "  worth 
taking  into  account,")  as  that  the  sacraments  are  of 
divine  institution  and  thus  imperatively  binding?*  I 
am  not  arguing  with  Quakers,  but  with  Protestant  Epis- 
copalians. What  answer  do  they  give  ?  Until  it  can  be 
answered  in  the  affirmative,  an  essential  link  in  Dr.  O.'s 
wire-drawn  chain  is  clearly  wanting.  Could  it  even  be 
supplied,  which  it  never  can,  still  the  claims  of  the  pre- 

*  [This  sentence  is  stricken  out  in  the  original,  but  as  its  place  has  not 
been  supplied,  and  as  something  of  the  kind  is  necessary  to  the  construction 
of  the  succeeding  sciitences,  it  is  here  restored. — Ed.] 


EPISCOrAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  13 

latical  succession  and  of  the  sacraments  would  only- 
stand  on  equal  ground.  As  it  is,  we  admire  that  any 
Protestant,  at  least,  can  for  a  moment  hesitate  between 
them."^ 

How  much  more  "apostolical"  and  rational  are  the  sen- 
timents of  Dr.  White,  now  the  senior  bishop  in  the  same 
church  and  in  the  same  diocese.  Indeed,  as  he  assumes, 
^'  even  those  who  hold  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right  con- 
ceive the  obliijation  to  it  to  be  not  bindincr  when  that  idea 
would  be  destructive  of  public  worship."  "  Much  more," 
he  justly  continues,  "  must  tliey  think  so  who  indeed  vene- 
rate and  prefer  that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligi- 
ble, but  without  any  idea  of  divine  right  in  the  case. 
This,"  he  adds,  "the  author  [Dr.  White]  believes  to  be 
the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in 
America,  in  which  respect  they  have  in  their  favour, 

*  That  the  reader  may  have  an  opportunity  to  judge  whether  I  have  in 
any  manner  misunderstood  Dr.  O.  on  this  important  point,  I  subjoin  the  whole 
passage,  remarking  only,  in  addition,  that  by  "  the  apostolical  or  Scriptural 
ininistry,''  I  of  course  understood  him  to  mean  that  of  tiie  uninterrupted  high 
church  succession  for  wiiich  he  contends,  and  which  he  allows  "  to  be  divine.^ 
His  language  is, — 

"  It  is  due  to  our  discussion  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  the  question  whether 
necessity  will  justify  a  departure  from  the  apostolical  or  Scriptural  ministry, 
or  the  instituting  of  a  new  ministry  where  that  cannot  be  obtained  1  Oa 
this  subject  the  first  point  to  be  determined  is,  what  is  '  necessity'  ?  '  Abso- 
lute necessity,'  to  assume  the  functions  of  the  ministry,  never  can  exist;  sal- 
vation is  not  indissolubly  connected  with  the  offices  of  a  pastor ;  the  sacra- 
ments are  not  absolutely,  but  only  '  generally  necessary  to  salvation,' — those 
who  cannot  obtain  them  not  being  required  to  partake  of  them.  Difficulties 
long  insuperable,  preventing  the  attainment  of  an  important  object,  form  the 
next  species  of  'necessity,'  and  that  which  is  usually  referred  to  in  this 
argument.  An.d  here  several  questions  arise.  Are  the  difficulties  insupera- 
ble ?  Have  they  been  long-  insuperable  ]  Is  the  object  so  important  as  to 
justify  deviation  from  an  institution  allowed  to  be  divine?  There  should  be 
no  reasonable  doubt  on  either  of  these  points. 

"  In  our  opinion  the  last  of  the  above  questions  can  never  be  justly  answered 
in  the  affirmative  ;  no  plea  can  be  strong  enough  to  release  us  from  divine  ap- 
pointments. What  God  has  instituted  for  his  church  he  will  preserve  in  his 
church,  and  diffuse  through  it,  till  the  institution  be  abrogated  by  him  or  is 
about  to  be  so.  This  appears  to  us  so  clear  a  dictate  of  faith,  so  funda- 
mental a  religious  truth,  that  we  will  not  argue  for  it ;  it  is  an  axiom,  or,  at 
least,  an  undeniable  postulate  ;  and  it  ought  to  settle  the  whole  matter."  Page 
40,  note  E.      [The  words  in  italics  are  printed  as  in  the  original.— Ed.] 


14  EPISCOI'AL    COXTROVEllS'Y    REVIEWED. 

unquestionably,  the  sense  of  tlie  Church  of  Eiig-land, 
and,  as  he  beheves,  the  opinions  of  lier  most  dis- 
tinguished prelates  for  piety,  virtue,  and  abilities.""- 
Again : — To  make  any  particular  form  of  church  go- 
vernment, though  adopted  by  the  apostles,  miaUerably 
binding,  Dr.  White  maintains,  "  it  must  be  shown  en- 
joined in  positive  precept."!  He  remarks  farther  that 
Dr.  Calamy  having  considered  it  as  the  sense  of  the 
church  [of  England],  "in  the  preface  to  the  ordinal, 
that  the  three  orders  were  of  di^dne  appointment,  and 
urged  it  as  a  reason  for  nonconformity, — the  bishop, 
[Hoadly,]  with  evident  jiroprietij,  remarks  that  the  ser- 
vice pronounces  no  such  tiling  ;  and  that,  therefore,  Dr. 
Calamy  created  a  dilRculty  where  the  church  had  made 
none — there  being  'some  difference,'  says  he,  'between 
these  two  sentences : — Bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  are 
three  distinct  orders  in  the  cluu-ch  Inj  divine  cqipoint- 
ment, — and,  From  the  apostles'  time  there  have  been,  in 
Christ's  church,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons."  "  The 
same  disthiction,"  says  Dr.  White,  "is  actually  drawn 
and  fulhj  proved  by  Stillingticet  in  the  Irenicum." 

"  Now,"  continues  Dr.  White,  "  if  the  form  of  church 
government  rest  on  no  other  foundation  than  ancient 
and  apostolical  practice,  it  is  humblj^  submitted  to  consi- 
deration whether  Episcopalians  will  not  be  thought 
scarcely  deserving  the  name  of  Christians  should  they, 
rather  than  consent  to  a  temporary  deviation,  abandon 
every  ordinance  of  positive  and  divine  appointment."^ 

Now  I  suppose  that  Dr.  W.  and  the  "distinguished 
prelate"  to  whom  he  refers,  to  go  no  farther,  had  proba- 
bly examined  both  the  Scriptures  and  the  fathers  with 
as  much  care  and  capacity  as  Dr.  0.,  or  even  as  Dr. 
Coohe, — a  medical  gentleman  devoted  to  a  different  pro- 
fession,— who,  "  after  six  weeks'  close  inquiry,"  as  he 
informs  us,  jumps  to  such  "  a  thorongh  conviction"  as 

*  Case  of  tlic  Episcopal  Church  in  the  UnitocI  States  Considered,  p.    2i'. 
t  Ibid.  I  Ibid.,  p.  22  and  note. 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  15 

leads  him  to  undertake  to  enlighten  the  world  with  a 
book  of  such  episcopal  ultraism  as  would  not  discredit 
Rome  itself, — such  a  one  as  not  even  the  ablest  pre- 
lates of  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  judgment  of  Dr. 
White,  himself  concurring,  with  all  the  predisposing  and 
surrounding  circumstances  to  bias  them  to  that  side,  and 
after  more  than  six  years  of  "'  close  inquiry,"  would 
have  had  the  temerity  to  usher  into  the  world.  True 
learning,  sanctilied  by  piety,  is  always  modest.  And  if 
there  be  any  question  debated  among  Christians  on 
which  their  moderation  ought  to  appear  to  all  men,  this 
is  one ; — a  question,  not  concerning  the  vital  and  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  our  holy  religion,  nor  even  the 
essential  being  of  a  Christian  church, — but  merely  con- 
cerning its  form  of  polity,  as  different  branches  of  the 
church,  in  different  times  and  in  different  places  and 
circumstances,  may  conceive  the  same  to  be  most  con- 
sonant to  the  principles  and  objects  of  Christianity,  and 
best  calculated  to  promote  vital  and  practical  godliness 
in  the  earth. 

But  I  beg  pardon.  This  is  not  Dr.  C.'s  ground.  His 
system  admits  of  no  such  moderation.  Althouirh  a  very 
recent  convert  to  it,  at  the  time  of  undertaking  his  book, 
he  goes  far  beyond  Dr.  Onderdonk,  Dr.  White,  and  the 
most  distinguished,  pious,  virtuous,  and  able  prelates  of 
the  mother  Church  of  England  itself.  With  him  it  is  a 
question  of  life  or  death,  neck  or  nothing,  church  or  no 
church.  Indeed,  the  language  which,  over  and  over,  he 
quotes  w^ith  approbation,  as  "most  unexceptionable," 
seems,  to  my  poor  apprehension,  to  be  little,  if  any, 
short  of  absolute  blasphemy.  It  is  almost  too  revolting 
to  be  repeated.  Of  this  I  shall  afford  the  reader  an 
opportunity  to  judge  in  the  sequel ;  remarking  here,  by 
the  way,  that  this  gentleman  might  as  hopefully  under- 
take to  persuade  this  generation  to  adopt  the  sentiments 
of  the  famous  "Apostohcal  Constitutions,"  which,  as 
the  learned  Archdeacon  Jortiu  remarks,  "  repeat  it  over 


16  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

and  over,  lest  Christians  should  chance  to  forget  it — 
that  a  bishop  is  a  god,  a  god  upon  earth,  and  a  king, 
and  infinitely  superior  to  a  king,  and  ruling  over  rulers 
and  kings."  ''  Here  is  strange  language  indeed  !  even 
far  beyond  all  eminencies  and  hoUnesses."*  In  the  judg- 
ment of  an  eminent  critic,!  the  sentiments  contained  in 
the  "  Apostolical  Constitutions"  bear  a  very  near  resem- 
blance to  those  in  the  epistles  attributed  to  Ignatius  and 
cited  by  Dr.  Cooke.  According  to  these,  indeed,  the 
reverence  due  to  Christ  himself  is  less  than  that  which 
is  due  to  the  bishop.  That  which  we  owe  to  Christ  is 
made  the  measure  of  the  reverence  due  to  "  the  dea- 
cons,"— the  lowest  order ;  while  "  the  bishop''  is  to  be 
reverenced  "  as  the  Father," — evidently  meaning  God 
*'  the  Father," — ^in  whose  place  he  is  alleged  to  preside 
in  the  church.  Could  any  language  more  clearly  betray 
the  hand  of  the  forger  of  some  later  age  ?  Will  any 
friend  of  the  holy  and  humble  Ignatius — ^the  disciple  of 
John,  whose  epistles  are  the  very  model  of  simplicity, — 
will  any  such  believe  that  that  plain  and  pious  man,  on 
the  very  eve  of  martyrdom,  and  himself  a  bishop,  would 
have  used  such  lansruaore,  and  uro^ed  and  illustrated  it 
again  and  again,  that  we  might  be  sure  not  to  mistake 
or  forget  it  ?  It  is  incredible  ;  or,  if  credible,  it  stamps 
the  name  of  Ignatius  with  a  stigma  from  which  we 
would  fain  rescue  it.  Before  Dr.  C.'s  pattern  of  episco- 
pacy can  be  embraced,  (for  what  he  quotes  as  "  most 
unexceptionable,"  will  be  taken  as  his  own,)  we  must 
believe  that  St.  Paul  made  a  great  mistake  when  he 
drew  the  picture  of  the  man  of  sin  sitting  in  the  temple 
of  God  as  God ;  for  this,  we  have  now  to  learn,  is  the 
very  character  of  a  true  Christian  bishop,  though  not 
such  a  one  as  Paul  describes  to  Timothy,  nor  as  his  son 
Timothy  himself  Why,  then,  should  we  any  longer  be 
offended  with  the  style  of  "our  lord  god,  the  pope"?  Is 

•Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i,  pp.  154,  156. 
tDr.  Campbell. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  17 

it  any  worse  than  {horresco  referens)  our  lord  god,  the 
bishop  7* 

Consistently  enough  with  the  above,  the  Ignatius  of 
Dr.  C  is  guilty  of  the  profanity  of  staking  his  own  soul 
as,  '^  security  for  them  that  submit  to  their  bishop,  with 
their  presbyters  and  deacons ;"  (the  latter  classes  of 
whom,  however,  be  it  remembered,  being  themselves 
bound  to  obey  their  bishop  as  "  the  source  of  all  autho- 
rity ;")t  averring  that  "whatsoever  he  [the  bishop]  shall 
approve  of,  that  is  also  pleasing  unto  God;'^  and  accord- 
ingly, in  another  place,  "  that  we  ought  to  look  upon  the 
bishop  even  as  we  would  do  upon  the  Lord  himself^ 
Epistles  to  Polycarp,  the  Smyrneans,  and  the  Ephe- 
sians.     AppendLx:,  pp.  6,  22,  24. 

Fine  times,  truly,  for  bishops,  if  these  doctrines  can 
be  made  to  prevail ;  (and  a  new  and  certain  way  to 
heaven,  which  neither  our  Lord  nor  any  of  the  apos- 
tles ever  discovered, — implicit  obedience  to  the  bishop  ;) 
especially,  if  we  add  one  other  very  remarkable  dictum 
of  this  Ignatius,  as  adduced  by  Dr.  C,  viz. : — "  The 
more  any  one  sees  his  bishop  sikfit,  the  more  let  him 
revere  him."     Ibid.,  p.  6.     That  is,  it  would  seem,  the 

*  It  may  be  proper  to  mention,  for  the  information  of  general  readers,  that 
there  are  two  sets  of  epistles  in  the  name  of  Ignatius  :  one  denominated  the 
larger,  and  the  other  the  shorter  or  smaller.  The  larger  are  given  up  by 
critics  as  confessedly  interpolated  ;  which  demonstrates  that  some  forger  did 
make  free  with  the  name  of  Ignatius.  The  smaller,  Dr.  C.  pronounces  "most 
unexceptionable,  and — written  in  the  very  spirit  of  an  ardently  pious  Chris- 
tian," p.  67.  Yet,  only  two  pages  before,  he  had  quoted  Dr.  Lardner  with 
applause  as  saying  that,  after  a  careful  comparison  of  the  two,  he  was  of 
opinion  that  "  even  the  smaller  epistles  may  have  been  tampered  with  by  the 
Arians,  or  the  orthodox,  or  both,"  p.  65. 

He  then  asserts  that  the  interpolations  in  these  epistles  respected  the 
Arian  controversy,  which  had  nothing  to  do  vvith  the  subject  of  church 
government ;  and  immediately  afterward  adds,  "  It  is  evident,  therefor*^,  that 
there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  to  suspect  the  interpolation  of  pa.^sages  to 
favour  episcopacy."  I  do  not  at  all  perceive  the  force  of  this  logic,  and 
shall  hereafter  take  occasion  more  fully  to  expose  its  futility.  But  the 
eulogy  of  Dr.  C.  warrants  at  least  the  inference  that  he  considers  whatever 
these  epistles  contain  on  the  subje.3t  of  episcopacy  as  "  most  unexceptiona- 
ble."    This  is  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose. 

t  Dr.  Cooke,  p.  19. 

2 


18  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

more  he  resembles  the  "dumb  dogs"  denounced  hy 
Isaiah,  and,  consequently,  the  less  he  resembles  the 
prophets  who  were  commanded  to  "cry  aloud"  and 
"  spare  not,"  lifting  up  their  "  voice  like  a  trumpet ;"  or 
Bishop  Timothy,  whom  Paul  charged  to  "preach  the. 
word, — instant  in  season  and  out  of  season  ;"  "  reprov- 
ing, rebuking,  exhorting ;"  or  Paul  himself,  who  "taught 
publicly  and  from  house  to  house, — testifying  both  to  the 
Jews  and  also  to  the  Greeks — warning  every  one,  night 
and  day,  wdth  tears ;"- — the  less,  I  say,  a  bishop,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  C.'s  favourite  Ignatius,  resembles  these,  the 
more  he  ought  to  be  revered.  On  this  singular  senti- 
ment, Dr.  Campbell  well  remarks : — Consequently,  if, 
like  the  Nazianzene  monk  celebrated  by  Gregory,  a 
bishop  should,  in  praise  of  God,  devote  his  tongue  to  an 
inviolable  taciturnity,  he  would  be  completely  venera^ 
ble.  This,  as  the  same  able  author  adds,  one  would  be 
tempted  to  think,  originated  from  some  opulent  ecclesi- 
astic, who  was  by  far  too  great  a  man  for  preaching ; 
at  least,  it  seems  an  oblique  apology  for  those  who  have 
no  objection  to  any  thing  implied  in  a  bishopric  except 
the  function.'^ 

Now,  to  perfect  the  claims  of  such  lords  over  God's 
heritage,  with  their  subject  presbyters  and  deacons,  no- 
thing more  would  seem  to  be  wanting  but  to  persuade 
the  Christian  w^orld  that  "without  these  there  is  no 
CHURCH."  And  these  are  the  identical  words  which  Dr. 
C  triumphantly  alleges  from  Ignatius,  and  puts  in  capi- 
tals as  throwing  "  a  blaze  of  light  on  the  subject."! 
They  do,  indeed, — a  burning  blaze — quite  enough  to 
consume  the  argument.  They  assert  more  than  Dr. 
Onderdonk  believed — with  Dr.  C.'s  book  before  him — 

*  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  102.  Nearly  akin  to  this  was 
the  injunction  to  the  English  bishops  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  They 
were  enjoined  to  preach  four  times  a  year,  unless  they  had  a  reasonable 
excuse,     deal's  History  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i,  p.  91. 

tibid.,  p.  20.     See  also  p.  19. 

2* 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED-  19 

or  Dr.  White,  the  senior  bishop  of  the  same  church,  or 
the  great  body  of  the  most  distinguished  bishops,  or 
others,  among  Protestant  EpiscopaUans,  in  Europe  or 
America."^     Yet  to  such  a  sweeping  conclusion  Dr.  C 
suddenly  leaps  over  the  heads  of  all  thesCj  assuring  us, 
at  the  same  time,  that  he  had  always  been  in  the  habit 
of  requiring  strong  evidence  upon  any  subject,  and  never 
yielding  assent  to  any  thing  that  was  not  supported  by 
it.     This,  then,  I  suppose,  may  be  regarded  as  a  speci- 
men of  his  incredulity  without  strong  evidence ;  although 
eminent  and   candid  critics   have   been   compelled   to 
admit  that  much  of  what  has  been  imposed  upon  the 
world  in  the  name  of  the  meek  and  holy  Ignatius  is 
demonstrably  spurious,   and  that,   in  consequence,   so 
great  a  degree  of  uncertainty  has  been  thrown  even 
upon  the  rest  as  to  render  it  extremely  difficult  even  for 
those   most  deeply  versed   in  ecclesiastical  antiquities 
and  literary  criticism,  after  many  years  of  close  investi- 
gation, to  distinguish  w^hat  is  genuine  and  true  from 
what  is  interpolated  and  false.     Let  it  be  distinctly  un- 
derstood that  what  is  above  said,  or  may  hereafter  be 
said,  for  I  shall  resume  this  point  in  another  place,  is  by 
no  means  intended  to  detract  in  the  least  from  the  just 
merits  of  that  aged  and  venerable  martyr,  whose  name 
and  memory  are  entitled  to  the  highest  respect;  but,  for 
this  very  reason,  to  save  him,  if  possible,  as  Dr.  Camp- 
bell observes,  "  from  a  second  martyrdom  in  his  works, 
through  the  attempts  not  of  open  enemies,  but  of  de- 
ceitful [I  would  rather  say,  of  credulous,  or  injudicious] 
friends."! 

Unlimited  and  implicit  subjection  then,  as  has  been 
shown,  on  the  part  of  the  whole  people,  not  only  to  the 
bishop,  but  to  the  whole  clerical  order,  is  the  doctrine 
of  Ignatius  as  quoted  and  underwritten  by  Dr.   C, — 

*  [At  this  part  of  the  manuscript  there  are  memoranda  indicating  that  the 
author  intended  to  say  more  upon  the  subject. — Ed.] 
t  Lectures,  p.  103. 


20  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

urged  too,  as  it  is,  by  the  supreme  motive  of  thereby 
infaUibly  securing  their  salvation,  on  the  pledge  of  his 
own  soul  for  it. 

In  the  progress  of  that  species  of  absolute  episcopal 
lordship,  hj  divine  right,  for  which  Dr.  C.  pleads,  he 
undertakes  to  show,  p.  99,  that  terms,  corresponding 
with  the  model  of  those  alleged  from  Ignatius,  w^ere 
used  in  Tertullian's  time  also,  conveying  the  very  idea 
that  a  bishop  ruled  as  "a  king"  and  "master."  At 
p.  47,  he  quotes  from  Hilary  too,  w^ith  apparent  approba- 
tion, after  Dr.  Bowden,that  "the  bishop  is  the  vicegerent 
of  Christ,  and  represents  his  pe?'so?i."*  The  legitimate 
and  natural  fruit  of  such  doctrines  began  to  exhibit  it- 
self, and  laid  the  true  foundation  of  the  papacy,  so  early 
as  in  the  days  of  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century.  This 
may  be  seen  in  a  passage  quoted  from  Jerome  by  Dr. 
C.  himself,  though  for  a  very  different  purpose.  Of 
some  of  the  bishops  even  of  that  time,  Jerome  testifies 
that,  "  as  if  placed  upon  some  lofty  eminence,  they 
scarce  deign  to  see  mortals  and  to  speak  to  their  fellow- 
servants,"  p.  113.  Lofty,  indeed!  And  if  the  senti- 
ments cited  by  Dr.  C.  as  "  most  unexceptionable,"  can 
be  triumphantly  established,  and  on  the  basis  of  divine 
right,  similar  fruit,  in  process  of  time,  (such  is  poor 
human  nature,)  must  and  will  again  appear.  And  how  far 
civil  liberty  itself  could  long  be  safe  under  such  a  sys- 
tem of  absolute  spiritual  despotism,  bound  upon  the 
neck  of  the  prostrate  people  by  the  supreme  sanction 
of  divine  appointment,  the  history  of  the  past  must  in- 
struct us,  or  wc  must  remain  uninstructed,  or  learn  from 
sad  experiment. 

I  am  truly  glad,  however,  for  the  sake  of  our  com- 
mon Christianity,  and  especially  for  the  sake  of  the 

*  One  of  these  vicegerents  and  representatives  of  Christ,  in  the  lineal 
succession,  Bishop  Bonner,  of  Enfjland,  was  in  the  habit  of  beating  his 
clergy  corporally  when  he  was  displeased  with  any  thing.  See  Bishop  Bur- 
net's Abridgment  of  the  History  of  the  Reforraation,  p.  262. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  21 

clerical  order,  and,  above  all,  of  the  episcopal,  that  Dr. 
C.  is  not  a  clergyman.  In  my  poor  opinion,  a  work 
could  scarcely  be  devised  calculated  more  seriously  and 
justly  to  prejudice  the  whole  clerical,  and  especially  the 
episcopal  cause, — and  through  that  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tianity,— although  I  am  far  from  believing  that  Dr.  C. 
intended  this.  It  has  been  his  zeal  in  the  service  of 
a  newlj  adopted  communion  that  has  probably  led 
him  to  overshoot  his  mark.  And  the  chief  wonder 
is  that  any  clergyman,  and,  above  all,  any  bishop, 
unless  indeed  it  were  he  of  Rome,  should  eulogize 
or  recommend  such  a  work ; — or  how  any  Christian 
people^  with  the  New  Testament  in  their  hands,  can 
favour  or  countenance  a  book  which  places  them,  by 
the  alleged  authority  of  Heaven  itself,  under  the  yoke 
of  a  spiritual  domination  thus  absolute,  unlimited,  and 
degrading. 

It  is  related,  among  other  ancient  ecclesiastical 
legends,  of  a  certain  monk  whom  Satan  would  have 
drawn  into  heresy  by  asking  his  opinion  on  a  certain 
point,  that  he  prudently  answered,  "  Id  credo  quod  credit 
ecclesia."  [I  believe  what  the  church  believes.]  But, 
said  Satan,  thinking  to  ensnare  him,  "  Quid  credit  eccle- 
siaT  [What  does  the  church  believe?]  The  wary 
monk  replied,  "  Id  quod  ego  credoT  [What  I  believe.] 
And  thus,  says  Jortin,^  if  Nestorius  would  have  slept 
in  his  own  bed,  he  should  have  said,  "7^  credo  quod 
credit  sanctissimus  Ci/riUus."  [I  believe  what  the  most 
holy  Cyril  believes.]  Cyril  was  bishop  of  Alexandria 
in  the  fifth  century.  Implicit  faith,  indeed,  is  the  very 
correlative  of  implicit  obedience, — the  necessary  result 
of  an  absolute  episcopacy,  by  divine  right,  and  the 
genuine  seed  of  all  the  monstrosities  of  the  papacy 
itself  How  different  from  the  doctrine  of  *'  the  great 
Paul," — "  Not  for  that  we  have   dominion  over  your 

•Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i,  p.  IQ. 


22  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

faith:"  and  of  Peter, — "Neither  as  being  lords  over 
God's  heritage." 

But  what  makes  the  matter  still  worse,  if  worse  can 
be,  as  if  Dr.  C.  were  determined  to  push  his  scheme  of 
episcopal  sovereignty  to  the  utmost  possible  extreme  of 
autocratical  absolutism,  he  not  only  exhibits  bishops  as 
holding,  by  divine  title,  such  actual  lordship  over.  God's 
heritage  generally,  but  over  the  presbyters  in  particular, 
of  whom  the  bishop  is  "judge  and  punisher,"  and  against 
whom,  however  "  partially"  he  may  act, — in  other 
words,  tyrannize  and  sin, — "  there  is  no  redressJ^  The 
inspired  Paul  himself,  had  Timothy  acted  thus  after  he 
was  constituted  a  bishop,  it  would  seem  according  to 
Dr.  C,  would  have  had  no  authority  to  correct  him,  or 
to  redress  the  presbyters ;  and  the  appeal  even  of  Paul 
must  have  been  "to  God"  alone.  Such  are  bishops 
after  Dr.  C.'s  pattern ;  and  consequently,  I  suppose, 
were  Paul  himself  or  the  whole  college  of  apostles  still 
on  earth,  with  all  their  plenary  powers,  they  would  be 
incompetent  to  afford  a  particle  of  redress  to  any  poor 
presbyter,  deacon,  or  laic,  against  the  partiality  or 
tyranny  of  any  bishop  in  this  succession,  though  he 
were  an  Alexander  VI., — a  very  Nero  among  the  popes 
themselves,^for,  against  such  "there  is  no  redress.""^ 


*If  it  seem  incredible  to  the  reader  that  any  man,  in  the  19th  century,  can 
think  of  imposing:  such  a  scheme  of  episcopacy  upon  Protestant  Christians, 
I  refer  him  to  the  whole  passage  in  Dr.  C.'s  book,  p.  8, — remembering  that 
it  is  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  his  theory  of  Timothy's  episcopate  at 
Ephesus  by  the  ordination  of  Paul,  and  the  "  most  unexceptionable"  powers 
of  a  bishop  elsewhere  alleged  by  him,  as  above  shown.  What  a  system  is 
here  !  Even  the  most  strenuous  advocates  of  tlie  high  church  nonjuring 
bishops  of  England,  who  maintained  the  indefeasible,  hereditary,  divine 
right  of  kings,  and  the  absolute  unlawfulness  of  resistance  on  the  part  of  the 
people,  under  any  provocation  or  pretext  whatever,  yet  admitted  that  a  bishop 
xnight  be  deposed  by  an  ecclesiastical  council.  Many  Papists,  too,  admit 
this  in  regard  even  to  the  pope.  But,  if  Bishop  Timothy  "  act  partially," 
and,  of  course,  sin,  in  this  or  in  any  other  way,  for  the  principle  is  the  same, 
what  is  the  remedy?  An  appeal  to  PauH  Nay:  his  "apostolical  rod" 
must  not  touch  the  hishop.  What  then  T  An  appeal  to  the  whole  college 
pf  apostles  in  councill  Equally  vain.  The  "rod"  of  the  whole  of  them 
is  unequal  to  this  exigence,     "  There  is  no  redress,  and  the  appeal  of  Paul 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  23 

A  favourite  position  of  the  advocates  of  episcopal 
ultraism  is,  that  the  divine  Founder  of  the  Christian 
ministry  intended,  in  its  original  institution,  to  conform 
it  to  the  model  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  and  temple  ser- 
vice. According  to  this  theory  it  is  alleged  that  the 
episcopate  succeeds  to  the  rank  and  prerogatives  of  the 
high-priesthood,  while  the  presbyters  take  the  place  of 
the  priests,  and  the  deacons  of  the  Levites.  The 
groundlessness  of  this  alleged  parallel  has  been  often 
exposed,  and  yet  there  are  not  wanting  writers  who 
continue  to  repeat  it.  Mosheim,  indeed,  charitably  ad- 
mits, as  "highly  probable,  that  they  who  first  intro- 
duced this  absurd  comparison  of  offices  so  entirely 
distinct,  did  it  rather  through  ignorance  and  error  than 
through  artifice  and  design  ;"  though,  as  he  remarks,  the 
notion  when  once  introduced,  being  industriously  propa- 
gated, produced  its  natural  pernicious  effects,  and  was 
made  a  new  source  both  of  honour  and  profit  to  the  doc- 
tors who  had  the  good  fortune  to  persuade  the  people 
into  the  belief  of  it. 

If  the  Christian  church  was  constituted  on  the  plan 
of  any  Jewish  model,  there  is  much  stronger  evidence 
that  it  was  that  of  the  synagogue  than  that  of  the  tem- 
ple. This  has  been,  as  many  think,  very  successfully 
demonstrated  by  Stillingfleet  and  others.  I  shall  not, 
however,  trouble  the  reader  with  a  detail  of  the  argu- 
ments which  sustain  this  position;    but  shall  content 

is  to  God."  So  says  Dr.  C,  and,  be  it  remembered,  according  to  him,  the 
episcopate  of  Timothy,  by  divine  right,  is  the  one  only  essential  model  of  a 
valid  Christian  episcopacy — without  which  there  can  be  no  true  church,  mi- 
nistry, or  ordinances — throughout  the  world,  and  until  the  appearing  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

But,  were  it  even  admitted  that  an  oppressed  presbyter  might  appeal  to 
an  ecclesiastical  council,  how,  according  to  Dr.  C,  would  it  be  necessary 
that  it  should  be  composed  1 

[A  portion  of  what  is  here  given  in  the  form  of  a  note  seems  to  have  been 
intended  to  take  the  place  of  a  part  of  the  text,  but,  as  the  necessary  altera^ 
lions  were  not  made  in  the  manuscript  by  ihe  author,  the  whole  is  here 
inserted,  though  liable,  in  some  degree,  to  the  charge  of  repetition. — tEd.] 


24  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

myself  with  the  single  observation  that,  if  the  parallel 
be  a  correct  one, — one  founded  in  divine  appointment 
as  the  allegation  is, — then  it  is  a  most  unfortunate  one 
for  Protestant  Episcopalians  ;  for,  most  unquestionably, 
in  the  alleged  model  there  was  but  one  high  priest,  and 
could  be  but  one,  legitimately,  at  a  time.  Consequently 
the  pattern  is  violated  in  its  most  important  and  essen- 
tial features, — in  its  very  head, — if  there  be  more  than 
one  bishop  at  a  time  over  the  whole  Christian  church, 
as  there  was  but  one  high  priest  at  a  time  over  the 
whole  Jewish  church.  At  any  rate,  nothing  short  of  one 
supreme,  universal  bishop  can  at  all  satisfy  the  parallel. 
Now  this  argument  would  be  very  appropriate,  and  enti- 
tled to  the  merit  of  consistency  at  least,  in  the  mouth 
of  the  pope  or  of  his  partizans.  But  how  it  can  serve 
the  cause  of  Protestant  Episcopalians,  who  maintain 
not  only  an  unlimited  plurality  but  the  perfect  official 
equality  of  all  bishops  throughout  the  world,  is  more 
than  I  have  wdt  to  penetrate.  How  the  hereditariness 
of  the  Jewish  high-priesthood  is  legitimately  reconciled, 
in  the  parallel,  with  the  celibacy  of  the  Romish  priest- 
hood, I  have  not  understood.  A  Protestant  pope, 
should  one  ever  be  set  up,  might  more  consistently  put 
in  a  claim  for  this  feature  in  it. 

Again,  however,  I  am  reminded  that  Dr.  C.  stops  not 
at  the  pattern  even  of  the  high-priesthood  of  Aaron. 
The  supreme,  controlling  power  of  "  Moses,"  with  the 
subordinate  rule  of  the  seventy  elders,  he  thinks  "  a 
form  of  government  as  much  like  the  episcopal  as  one 
thing  can  be  like  another,"  p.  116.  If  he  means  the 
papal  episcopal,  some  analogy  must  be  granted,  so  far 
at  least  as  to  the  "form"  of  one  and  one  only  supreme 
earthly  chief  over  the  whole  people.  But  if  the  pro- 
iestant  episcopal  be  meant,  then  even  the  trace  of 
analogy  must  be  denied ;  and  I  should  suppose  all 
Protestants^  Dr.  C,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  excepted,  would 
join  in  the  denial. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  25 

Indeed  Dr.  C.  seems  not  satisfied  that  even  Moses' 
government  was  that  of  the  archet}qie  in  the  divine  will 
and  preference.  Have  we  then  not  yet  reached  his  ulti- 
matum of  individual  absolutism  I  It  seems  not.  In  his 
opinion  that  part  of  the  model  which  consisted  in  the 
appointment  of  elders  to  assist  Moses  "was  not  the  plan 
God  instituted  for  Moses."  This  he  expressly  asserts  ; 
and  then,  that  there  may  be  no  mistake  about  it,  imme- 
diately adds  in  the  succeeding  sentence,  "  He  [God]  set 
him  [Moses]  over  the  people  alone,"  p.  117.  The  mean- 
ing, doubtless,  is, — Set  him  alone  over  the  people.  He 
seems  even  dissatisfied  with  the  meek  and  diffident 
Moses  for  beseeching  "God  to  give  him  help  to  rule 
over  the  people ;"  and  adds  that,  although  the  request 
w^as  granted,  it  was,  nevertheless,  with  "  marked  dis- 
pleasure" on  the  part  of  the  Almighty.  The  whole 
paragraph,  in  connection  with  the  preceding,  demon- 
strates, to  the  best  of  my  understanding,  that  Dr.  C. 
would  have  thought  it  better  if  Moses  had  continued  to 
rule  the  people  "  alone"  without  the  help  of  elders. 
And  if  so  in  the  Jewish  type,  as  alleged,  why  not  in 
the  Christian  antitype  ?  If  his  holiness,  the  sovereign 
pontiff,  ever  saw  or  shall  yet  see  this  argument,  it  might 
well  bring  from  him  an  offering  of  gratitude  to  the  au- 
thor, bat  how  it  can  from  any  protestant  bishop,  elder, 
deacon,  or  laic,  I  must  again  profess  myself  utterly  at  a 
loss  to  imagine.  Scarcely  less  gratitude,  one  would 
think,  is  due  from  Rome  for  the  very  strong  testimony 
alleged  out  of  Irenseus,  by  Dr.  C,  in  behalf  of  that 
"  greatest,  most  ancient,  and  universally  known  church, 
founded  and  constituted  at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glo- 
rious apostles,  Peter  and  Paul." — ''For  with  this  church," 
[Dr.  0.  himself  marks  it  emphatically,  as  is  here  done,] 
on  account  of  its  greater  pre-eminence,  it  is  necessary  that 
every  church  should  agree ;  that  is,  those  which  are  in  all 
respects  faithful,''  pp.  71,  72.  If  the  argument  be  a 
good  one  in  the  episcopal  controversy,  wdiy  not  in  every 


26  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

other?     Thank  you,  protestant  Dr.,  might  Rome  well 
say. 

I  have  heard  of  a  Protestant  Episcopal  clergyman, 
not  one  thousand  miles  from  where  I  write,  who,  in 
labouring  to  seduce  one  of  our  ministers  from  his  fidel- 
ity to  his  own  church,  I  regret  to  say  it,  by  the  merce- 
nary temptation,  among  other  means,  of  a  vacant  parish, 
(a  species  of  conduct  in  which  there  is  too  much  reason 
to  believe  he  has  not  been  singular,)  alleged  in  argu- 
ment that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this 
country  is  the  chief  barrier  to  the  progress  of  the  Pa- 
pists ;  and  ours  a  hinderance  to  the  successful  resistance 
of  this  barrier.  And  this  gentleman,  I  believe,  was  also 
an  admirer  and  recommender  of  Dr.  C.'s  book.  With 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and  its  clergy  gene- 
rally, we  neither  seek  nor  desire  controversy.  We 
should  be  most  happy  to  agree  with  them,  especially  in 
withstanding  sin  and  Satan  in  every  form.  But  if  the 
extravagant  pretensions  of  Rome  are  ever  to  be  suc- 
cessfully resisted,  surely  we  may  say  of  the  work  be- 
fore us, — 

"  Non  talibus  armis,  nee  defensoribus  istis," 

After  drawing  such  a  picture  of  episcopacy,  and  at- 
tempting to  establish  it  on  such  a  basis,  Dr.  C.  remarks, 
— "Of  this  state  of  things  in  the  church,  evidence  more 
and  more  abounds  as  we  progress  through  the  third 
century.  For  this  he  assigns  the  following  curious  rea- 
sons: — "Because,"  as  he  continues,  "more  and  more 
learninof  was  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  the  Christian  reh- 
gion,  and  because  more  of  the  writings  of  the  fathers 
of  the  succeeding  centuries  have  been  preserved."  It 
seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  him,  or  at  least  not  to 
have  been  judged  expedient  to  be  mentioned  to  his 
readers,  that  it  was  rather  "because"  of  the  increasing 
corruptions  and  usurpations  that  ensued,  through  which 
the  whole  face  of  the  church  was  changed,  and  tho 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  27 

bishops  of  the  succeeding  ages,  leaving  the  simpUcity 
of  their  predecessors,  were  elevated  to  the  rank,  the 
titles,  the  immunities,  and  the  powers  of  sovereign  lords. 
To  deny  this  fact,  one  must  either  be  ignorant  of  all 
history  or  shut  his  eyes  against  its  clearest  light. 

The  seeds  of  this  state  of  things  were  sown,  I  grant, 
though  probably  without  even  dreaming  of  their  ulti- 
mate fruit,  at  a  comparatively  early  period.  Even 
Ctjprian,  the  famous  bishop  of  Carthage  in  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  whose  writings  are  as  confidently 
cited  by  some  eminent  men  against  the  exclusive  claims 
of  diocesan  episcopacy  by  divine  institution,  as  by  others 
for  them,  seems,  undesignedly,  to  have  at  times  used 
language  in  the  florid  style  of  his  country  and  age, 
which  Papists  allege  as  containing  the  very  essential 
principles  of  the  popedom.  I  say  undesignedly, — be- 
cause Cyprian  himself  showed  this  in  his  own  noble 
resistance  of  the  imperious  Stephen  of  Rome.  One  of 
the  famous  sayings  of  Cyprian,  as  alleged  in  the  no 
less  famous  Council  of  Trent,  was,  that  throughout 
the  whole  Christian  church  "there  is  hut  one  hishop- 
ricke,  and  every  bishop  holdeth  a  part  thereof  in  soli- 

This  ingenious  and  fruitful  idea  was  more  largely 
developed  and  amplified  in  the  same  council  by  Father 
Laynez,  general  of  the  Jesuits.     That  saying  of  Cy- 

*  Historie  of  the  Councell  of  Trent,  by  Fra  Paolo  Sarpi,  p.  599.  There 
is  a  singular  expression  seeming  to  look  this  way,  tliough  obscurely,  in  one 
of  the  epistles  of  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch. 
He  is  speaking  of  his  rival,  Novatus,  as  Eusebius  names  him,  (or  Novatian, 
according  to  Moslieim,)  whom  he  berates  most  roundly,  and,  among  other 
things,  remarks  as  follows  : — "  Wherefore  this  jolly  defender  of  the  gospell 
was  ignorant  that  there  ought  to  be  but  one  bishop  in  the  catholicke  [universal] 
church."  (Eusebius'  Ecclesiastical  History,  lib.  vi,  ch.  42.  The  original 
Greek  of  Eusebius,  as  quoted  by  Lord  King,  is,  "  Ovk  ijinararo  iva  eTTLaiwTTov 
deiv  Etvai  tv  Ka6o?uK^  eKK?.T]aia."  And  his  reference  is  to  chap,  xliii,  accord- 
ing to  the  Greek  original.)  Why  did  Cornelius  style  the  Church  of 
Rome  the  Catliolic  Church  ?  Did  Cyprian  borrow  the  idea,  or  did  Cor- 
nelius take  it  from  Cyprian  ?  Tliey  were  contemporaries  and  correspond- 
ents. 


28  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

prian,  he  argued,  "  is  to  bee  expounded  that  th§  whole 
power  is  placed  in  one  pastor,  without  division,  who 
doth  impart  and  communicate  it  to  his  fellow-ministers 
as  cause  doth  require.  And  in  this  sence  Ciprian  ma- 
keth  the  Apostolique  Sea  like  unto  a  roote,  an  head,  a 
fountaine,  and  the  sunne ;  shewing-,  by  these  compari- 
sons, that  jurisdiction  is  essential  in  that  alone,  and  in 
others  bj  derivation  or  participation.  And  this  is  the 
meaning,"  he  adds,  "  of  the  words  so  much  used  by- 
antiquity,  that  Peter  and  the  pope  have  fulnesse  of 
power,  and  the  others  are  of  their  charge."  As  a  mat- 
ter of  curiosity,  it  may  perhaps  gratify  the  reader  to  see 
a  little  more  of  the  Jesuit  general's  amplification  of  the 
idea  of  Cyprian.  "And  that  he  [the  pope,  continues 
the  general]  is  the  onely  pastor,  is  plainely  proved  by  the 
words  of  Christ,  when  he  said.  He  hath  other  sheepe 
which  he  will  gather  together,  and  so  one  sheepfold 
should  be  made,  and  one  shepheard.  The  shepheard 
meant  in  that  place  cannot  be  Christ,  because  he  would 
not  speake  in  the  future,  that  there  shall  be  one  shep' 
heard,  himself  then  being  a  shepheard,  and  therefore  it 
must  be  understood  of  another  shepheard  which  was  to 
be  constituted  after  him,  which  can  be  no  other  but 
Peter  and  his  successors."  To  cap  the  climax  of  this 
argument,  the  ingenious  general,  criticising  that  passage 
of  Christ  to  Peter,  "  Feed  my  sheep,"  avers  that  the 
term  "  sheep"  there  signifies  "  animals,  which  have  no 
part  or  judgment  in  governing  themselves."^  I  by  no 
means  intend  to  insinuate,  however,  that  this  criticism 
is  concurred  in  by  Dr.  C. ;  for,  although  he  maintains,  as 
"most  unexceptionable,"  the  sentiment  alleged  from 
Ignatius  of  implicit  subjection  to  the  bishop,  as  "  in  the 
place  of  God,"  yet  it  is,  I  presume  of  course,  as  men, 
and  not  as  brute  "  animals  ;" — although  I  must  confess, 
on  farther  thought,  that  such  a  yoke  would  seem  to  be 

*  Ilistorie  of  the  Counccll  of  Trent,  by  Fra  Paolo  Sarpi,  p.  611. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  29 

rather  more  galling  on  the  necks  of  rational  and  Chris- 
tian men  than  even  on  those  of  brute  "  animals."^ 

But  as  Dr.  C.  makes  the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  iden- 
tified as  he  thinks  it  with  that  of  Polycarp  and  Irenaeus 
afterward,  a  main  pillar  of  his  castle,  I  am  not  yet  done 
with  this  father.  The  epistles  ascribed  to  him  are  the 
first  of  the  ecclesiastical  writing  of  antiquity  which 
mentioned  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  as  three 
distinct  orders  in  the  Christian  church.  He  is  supposed 
by  some  to  have  written  about  the  sixteenth  year  of  the 
second  century ;  and  by  some  even  earlier.  Dr.  C. 
quotes  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Lardner,  as  before  stated,  that 
his  smaller  epistles  as  well  as  the  larger  may  have  been 
tampered  with  by  the  Arians  or  the  orthodox,  or  both ; 
and  from  this,  after  a  little  preparation  of  the  reader,  in 
regard  to  the  Arian  controversy,  he  skips  to  the  conclu- 
sion,— "  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  is  not  the 
slightest  ground  to  suspect  the  interpolation  of  passages 
to  favour  episcopacy."  Now,  to  me,  this  is  strange 
logic.  How  the  admission  that  they  may  have  been 
tampered  with  in  one  important  respect  makes  it  "  evi- 
dent" that  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  to  suspect 
that  they  have  been  tampered  with  in  any  other,  I  can- 
not perceive.  Let  the  argument  be  put  into  form,  and 
it  runs  tlms  : — 

The  larger  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  certainly  spurious ; 
and  even  the  smaller  may  have  been  tampered  with  by 
the  Arians  or  the  orthodox,  or  both. 

Therefore,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  not  the  slightest 
ground  to  suspect  that  they  were  ever  interpolated  on 
the  subject  of  episcopacy. 

*  After  Christianity  became  the  established  and  ruling  religion,  tumults, 
seditions,  and  even  massacres,  sometimes  took  place  at  the  elections  of 
bishops.  This  was  the  natural  result  of  such  doctrines  of  episcopal  dignity 
and  supremacy.  See  Jortin's  Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i, 
p.  414. 


30  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

And  yet  this  is  very  much  the  manner  in  which  Dr. 
C.  draws  conclusions  and  makes  assertions  in  various 
places  of  his  book. 

The  interpolations  of  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  being 
admitted  by  eminent  and  candid  critics  of  all  parties,  it 
cannot  be  safe  to  found  any  decision  in  this  controversy 
on  the  testimony  of  an  author  with  whose  works  tran- 
scribers have  confessedly  made  so  free.  If  they  were 
interpolated  with  regard  to  important  doctrines,  w^hy 
may  they  not  have  been  also  in  regard  to  church  polity? 
Did  not  the  indisputable  progress  of  clerical  usurpation, 
and  especially  of  episcopal  domination  and  arrogance, 
in  the  following  ages,  aiford  at  least  an  equal  temptation 
to  such  2)ioiis  frauds  ?  The  ''Apostolical  Constitutions'^ 
is  also  a  work  of  antiquity,  pretended  to  have  been 
written  even  by  the  twelve  apostles  and  St.  Paul  toge- 
ther with  Clemens  for  their  amanue?isis.  It  is  a  work, 
too,  the  sentiments  of  which  on  episcopacy,  as  I  have 
before  shown  in  a  quotation  from  Dr.  Jortin,  are  obvi- 
ously similar  to  those  ascribed  to  Ignatius  ;  and  it  is 
not  a  little  remarkable,  in  this  connection,  that  such  cri- 
tics as  Le  Clerc  and  the  "  learned  and  ingenious" 
Bruno,  as  Dr.  Jortin  testifies,  had  a  suspicion  that  an 
Arian  bishop  of  the  fourth  century,  Leontius,  was  the 
inventor  or  the  interpolator  of  these  Constitutions  also.'^ 
For,  be  it  remembered  that,  not  long  after  their  rise  in 
the  fourth  century,  the  Arians  not  only  had  their 
bishops,  but,  through  the  favour  of  Constantine  in  his 
latter  days,  and  especially  of  his  son  Constantius,  be- 
came the  dominant  sect.  And  how  likely  the  Arian 
as  w^ell  as  the  orthodox  bishops  of  that  and  some  fol- 
lowing ages  may  have  been  to  perpetrate  such  imposi- 
tions on  the  ignorant  may  be  conjectured  from  the  state 
assumed  by  this  said  Arian  prelate,  Leontius.    It  is  cer- 

*  Dr.  Campbell  thinks  they  were  a  compilation  probably  begun  in  the  third 
century,  and  ended  in  the  fourth  or  fifth.      Lectures,  p.  99. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEAVED.  31 

tain,  says  Jortin,  that  he  carried  his  head  high  enough ; 
and  sent  word  to  the  empress  Eusebia,  who  is  said  to 
have  been  haughty,  that  he  would  not  comply  with  her 
request  and  pay  her  a  visit,  unless  she  would  promise 
to  bow  down  before  him  and  receive  his  blessing,  and 
then  to  stand  up  while  he  sat,  until  he  should  give  her 
leave  to  sit  down ;  which  put  the  lady  into  a  violent 
rage.* 

Now  even  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  might  be  of 
service  on  several  accounts,  as  they  contain  many 
things  undoubtedly  true,  in  regard  both  to  the  doc- 
trines and  the  discipline  of  the  ancient  church ;  but  the 
whole  are  so  blended  with  insertions  of  a  later  date  that 
it  is  now  beyond  human  skill,  as  the  last-named  eminent 
critic  remarks,  to  make  the  separation  with  any  certainty. 
And,  should  their  authority  appear  only  ambiguous,  as 
he  had  before  observed,  it  would  be  our  duty  to  reject 
them,  lest  we  should  adopt,  as  divine  doctrines,  the  com- 
mandments of  men.  This  is  precisely  our  view  of  the 
epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius.  That  he  did  write  epistles, 
shortly  before  his  martyrdom,  is  not  in  the  least  doubted. 
Neither  is  it  disputed  that  what  he  wrote,  especially  in 
res^ard  to  facts  within  his  own  knowledg-e,  or  to  the 
traditions  received  from  the  apostles  or  their  contempo- 
raries, could  we  separate  with  any  certainty  what  is 
genuine  and  authentic  from  what  is  spurious  and  false, 
would  be  entitled  to  high  regard.  Against  our  oppo- 
nents, indeed,  in  this  controversy,  whatever  is  to  our 
purpose  in  the  testimony  even  of  Ignatius,  a  witness  of 
their  own  introduction,  may  well  be  urged ;  for  though, 
as  Dr.  Campbell  judiciously  remarks,  the  work  ascribed 
to  him  is,  with  reason,  suspected  to  have  been  interpo- 
lated with  a  view  to  aggrandize  the  episcopal  order,  it 
was  never  suspected  of  any  interpolation  with  a  view  to 
lessen  it.f 

•Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i,  p.  156. 

t  Dr.  Jortin,  after  rejecting  altogether  the  larger  epistles  ascribed  to  Igna- 


32  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

Among  the  arguments  which  render  suspicious  the 
integrity  of  the  epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  as  regards 
church  pohty,  the  following  are  advanced  by  Dr. 
Campbell : — 

"  What  makes  his  testimony  the  more  to  be  suspected 
is,  first,  because  the  forementioned  distinction  [of  three 
orders]  is  so  frequently  and  officiously  obtruded  on  the 
reader,  sometimes  not  in  the  most  modest  and  becoming 
terms,  as  was  the  manner  of  the  apostles,  when  speak- 
ing of  their  own  authority ;  and  obedience  is  enjoined 
to  the  bishop  and  presbyters,  even  where  the  injunction 
cannot  be  deemed  either  natural  or  pertinent,  as  in  his 
epistle  to  Polycarp,  who  was  himself  a  bishop.  Secondly, 
because  the  names  bishop  and  presbyter  are  never  used 
by  him  for  expressing  the  same  office,  as  they  had  been 
uniformly  used  by  all  who  had  preceded  him,  and  were 
occasionally  used  by  most  of  the  ecclesiastic  writers  of 
that  century.  Thirdly  and  principally,  because  Poly- 
carp, a  contemporary  and  surviver  of  Ignatius,  in  a  letter 
to  the  Philippians,  quoted  in  a  former  discourse,  pointing 
out  the  duties  of  all  ranks,  pastors  and  people,  makes 
mention  of  only  two  orders  of  ministers,  to  wit :  presby- 
ters and  deacons,  in  the  same  manner  as  Luke,  and 

tius  as  clearly  spurious,  adds  the  observation,  that  although  the  shorter  are, 
on  many  accounts,  preferable  to  the  larger,  yet  he  would  not  affirnri  that  even 
they  had  undergone  no  alteration  at  all. — Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History, 
vol.  i,  p.  227.  The  same  author  says  that  "  Origen,  and  other  ancient  Chris- 
tians, ascribe  to  our  Saviour  this  saying  : — Tiveafte  6oKifj,oi  TparrE^iTai,  ra/iev 
aiTodoKifjai^ovTEc,  to  (h  koIov  «re7f,Yovref  ;  that  is,  act  like  skilful  haiikers,  reject- 
ing what  is  bad,  and  retaining  what  is  good.  This  precept,"  continues  the 
archdeacon,  "  is  proper  for  all  who  apply  themselves  to  the  study  of  religious 
antiquities.  Good  and  bad  money  is  offered  to  them ;  and  they  ought  to 
beware  of  the  coin  which  will  not  pass  current  in  the  republic  of  letters  and 
in  the  critical  world,  and  of  that  which  is  found  light  when  weighed  in  the 
balance  of  the  sanctuary."  Ibid.,  pp.  420,  421.  This  advice,  whether  truly 
handed  down  from  our  Saviour  or  not,  is  worthy  of  a  man  of  letters  and  a 
Christian  divine  ;  and  the  latter  part  of  it  especially  the  plainest  reader  may 
follow,  and  will  do  well  to  follow,  though  he  may  not  have  the  good  fortune 
to  be  of  the  republic  of  letters,  or  conversant  with  the  critical  world.  Let 
him  weigh  lu  the  balance  of  the  sanctuary,  then,  the  extravagant  episcopal 
ultraism  which  Dr.  C.  so  often  alleges  from  the  sophisticated  Ignatius,  as 
essential  to  the  very  being  of  a  church,  and  the  result  is  not  feared. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  33 

Paul,  and  Clement  had  done  before  him;  nay,  and 
recommends  to  the  people  submission  to  them,  and  only 
to  them,  in  terms  which,  I  must  say,  were  neither  pro- 
per nor  even  decent,  if  these  very  ministers  had  a  supe- 
rior in  the  church  to  w^hom  they  themselves,  as  well  as 
the  people,  were  subject.  To  me,  the  difference  between 
these  two  writers  appears  by  no  means  as  a  diversity  in 
style,  but  as  a  repugnancy  in  sentiment.  They  cannot 
be  both  made  applicable  to  the  same  state  of  the  church ; 
so  that  we  are  forced  to  conclude,  that  in  the  v/ritings 
of  one  or  the  other  there  must  have  been  something 
spurious  or  interpolated.  Now  I  have  heard  no  argu- 
ment urged  against  the  authenticity  of  Polycarp's  letter 
equally  cogent  as  some  of  the  arguments  employed 
against  the  aathenticity  of  the  epistles  of  Ignatius.  And, 
indeed,  the  state  of  the  church,  in  no  subsequent  period, 
can  well  account  for  such  a  forgery  as  the  epistle  of 
the  former  to  the  Philippians ;  w^hereas  the  ambition  of 
the  ecclesiastics,  for  which  some  of  the  following  cen- 
turies were  remarkable,  renders  it  extremely  easy  to 
account  for  the  nauseous  repetition  of  obedience  and 
subjection  to  the  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  to  be 
found  in  the  letters  of  Ignatius."^ 

Again : — "  It  is  not  only  what  we  find  singular  in  them 
for  so  early  a  period,  relating  to  the  different  orders  of 
ministers  in  the  church,  which  has  raised  suspicions  of 
their  authenticity,  or,  at  least,  of  their  integrity ;  there 
are  other  causes  which  have  co-operated  in  producing 
the  same  effect :  one  is,  the  style,  in  many  places,  is  not 
suited  to  the  simplicity  of  the  times  immediately  suc- 
ceeding the  times  of  the  apostles.  It  abounds  with 
inflated  epithets,  unlike  the  humble  manner  of  the 
inspired  writers ;  and  in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  seems 
more  formed  on  that  which  became  fashionable  after 
the  acquisition  of  greater  external  importance,  which 

•  Lecture  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  pp.  96,  7. 

3 


34  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

opulence  never  fails  to  bring,  and  after  the  discussion 
of  certain  theological  questions  agitated  in  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries,  to  which  we  find,  sometimes,  a  mani- 
fest allusion.  What  I  am  eroinor  to  observe  has  much 
the  appearance  of  anachronism,  which  often  betrays  the 
hand  of  the  interpolator.  The  expression,  the  church 
which  is  171  Syria^  occurs  twice.  Now  nothing  can  be 
more  dissimilar  to  the  dialect  which  had  prevailed  in  the 
apostolic  age,  and  which  continued  to  prevail  in  the 
second  century.  Except  when  the  church  denoted  the 
whole  Christian  community,  it  meant  no  more  than  a 
single  congregation.""^  Now  there  were  many  churches 
in  Syria  in  the  days  of  Ignatius,  and  many  bishops. 
Indeed  when,  through  the  increase  of  converts,  a  bishop's 
parish  came  to  contain  more  people  than  could  be  com- 
prehended in  one  congregation,  the  custom  continued, 
in  contradiction  to  propriety,  of  still  calling  his  charge  a 
church,  in  the  singular  number.  But  it  was  not  till  after 
the  distinction  made  between  the  metropolitan  and  the 
suffragans,  which  was  about  a  century  later,  that  this 
use  originated,  of  calling  all  the  churches  of  a  province 
the  church  (not  the  churches)  of  such  a  province.  To 
this  they  w^ere  gradually  led  by  analogy.  The  metro- 
politan presided  among  the  provincial  bishops,  as  the 
bishop  among  the  presbyters.  The  application  of  the 
term  was,  after  the  rise  of  patriarchal  jurisdiction, 
extended  still  further.  All  that  was  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  archbishop,  or  patriarch,  was  his  church. 

But  it  is  not  the  style,  only,  which  has  raised  suspi- 
cion ;  it  is  chiefly  the  sentiments.  "  Attend  to  the 
bishop,"  says   Ignatius  to   Polycarp,   "that  God  may 

*  Lord  King  says  that  he  found  the  word  church  once  used  by  Cyprian 
[about  the  middle  of  the  tliird  century]  for  a  collection  of  many  particular 
churches;  but  that,  except  in  this  instance,  he  did  not  remember  ever  to  have 
met  with  it  in  this  sense  in  any  writings,  either  of  Cyprian  or  the  rest  of  the 
fathers ;  but,  whenever  they  would  speak  of  the  Christians  in  any  kingdom 
or  province,  they  always  said,  in  the  plural,  the  churches;  never  in  the 
singular,  the  church,  of  such  a  kingdom  or  province. — Pp.  4,  5. 

3^ 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  35 

attend  to  you.  I  pledge  my  soul  for  theirs  who  are 
subject  to  the  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons.     Let  my 

part  in  God  be  with  them.  Avnipvxov  eyu  tuv  vnoraaco/xevuv  t(j 

emaKo-Jui  K.T.}..;  wliicli  Cotolerius  renders  Devovear  ego  pro 
Us  qui  subditi  sunt  episcopo,  &lc.  Admit  that,  from  his 
adopting  the  plural  of  the  imperative  npoGexere,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  paragraph,  he  is  to  be  considered  as 
addressing  the  congregation  of  Smyrna,  and  not  the 
bishop  to  whom  the  letter  is  directed,  is  there  nothing 
exceptionable  in  what  he  says  ?  Was  it  the  doctrine  of 
Ignatius,  that  all  that  is  necessary  to  salvation  in  a 
Christian  is  an  implicit  subjection  to  the  bishop,  presby- 
ters, and  deacons?  Be  it  that  he  means  only  in  spi- 
ritual matters,  is  this  the  style  of  the  apostles  to  their 
Christian  brethren  ?  Was  it  thus  that  Ignatius  exhibit- 
ed to  his  followers  the  pattern  which  had  been  given  by 
that  great  apostle,  who  could  say  of  himself  and  his 
fellow  apostles,  appealing  for  his  voucher  to  the  people's 
experience  of  their  ministry.  We  preach  not  ourselves,  but 
Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  and  ourselves  your  servants,  for 
Jesus'  sake.'"'^ 

On  the  contrary,  as  the  same  author  continues  a 
little  after,  "is  it  not  his  predominant  scope,  [that  of  the 
assumer  of  Ignatius'  name,]  in  those  letters,  to  preach 
himself  and  other  ecclesiastics,  inculcating  upon  the 
people  the  most  submissive,  unlimited,  and  blind  obe- 
dience to  all  of  the  clerical  order  ?  This  is  an  everlast- 
ing topic,  to  which  he  never  slips  an  opportunity  of 
recurring,  in  season  and  out  of  season.  The  only  con- 
sistent declaration  wliich  would  have  suited  the  author 
of  these  epistles,  must  have  been  the  reverse  of  Paul's. 
We  preach  not  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  but  so  far  only  as 
may  conduce  to  the  increase  of  our  influence,  and  the 
exaltation  of  our  power ;  nay,  for  an  object  so  import- 
ant, we  are  not  ashamed  to  preach  up  ourselves  your 

•Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,~pp.  100-102. 


36  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEAVED. 

masters,  with  imbounded  dominion  over  your  faith,  and 
consequently  over  both  soul  and  body."^ 

Such,  in  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Campbell,  are  the 
epistles  which  Dr.  C.  regards  as  "most  unexception- 
able," and  which,  as  before  said,  constitute  a  main 
pillar  of  his  hierarchal  edifice. 

To  strengthen  this  pillar,  moreover,  he  endeavours  to 
make  cut  that  the  testimony  of  Polycarp  and  Irenseus 
is  identical  with  that  in  these  epistles. 

Polycarp  was  a  contemporary  and  surviver  of  Igna- 
tius. His  writings,  in  the  order  of  time,  w^ere  between 
those  of  Ignatius  and  Irenceus ;  and  he  suffered  martyr- 
dom probably  a  little  before  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  or  soon  after  ;  for  chronologists  do  not  exactly 
agree  on  this  point.f  Dr.  C.  quotes  him  as  saving  in 
his  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  "  The  epistles  of  Igna- 
tius which  he  wrote  unto  us,  together  with  what  others 
of  his  have  come  to  our  hands,  we  have  sent  to  you, 
according  to  your  order ;  which  are  subjoined  to  this 
epistle ;  by  which  you  may  be  greatly  profited, — for 
they  treat  of  faith,  and  patience,  and  of  all  things  that 
pertain  to  edification  in  the  Lord  Jesus.":]:  This,  with 
his  strong  attestation  of  Ignatius's  personal  worth  and 
triumphant  end.  Dr.  C.  says,  "  show  that  Polycarp  com- 
pletely agreed  with  Ignatius  in  relation  to  the  great 
concerns  of  the  church.  All  that  we  see,  therefore,  [he 
continues,]  in  the  passages  in  Italics  in  the  epistles  of 
Ignatius,  [that  is,  what  Dr.  C.  puts  in  Italics  in  these 
epistles,  as  printed  in  his  appendix,]  stands  supported 
by  the  evidence  of  Polycarp,  as  completely  as  if  he  had 
himself  written  those  epistles.":|: 

Hold,  dear  sir.    This  is  another  conclusion  too  hastily 

*  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  pp.  100-102. 

t  There  is  also  considerable  diversity  ainonn^  critics  as  to  the  exact  date 
of  Polycarp's  epistle.  Dr.  Jortin  says  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  written 
A.  D.  107  ;  Dr.  Campbell  that  it  must  certainly  have  been  written  a  con- 
siderable time  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

X  p.  70. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  37 

sprung  to.  It  is  a  mere  petitio  priticipii, — a  sheer 
begging-  of  the  question.  It  must  first  be  proved  that 
all  those  passages  were  in  the  copy  of  those  epistles 
which  came  under  the  eye  of  Polycarp ;  for  this,  you 
ought  to  be  aware,  is  disputed,  for  reasons  already  given. 
Until  this  difficulty,  therefore,  is  removed,  this  argu- 
ment is  deficient  in  an  essential  link. 

The  same  remarks  are  applicable  to  Dr.  C's  attempt 
to  identify  the  testimony  of  Irenseus  with  the  passages 
which  he  has  marked  as  specially  observable  under  the 
name  of  Ignatius.  It  must  first  be  proved  that  Irenseus 
ever  saw  them.  This  foundation  of  the  argument  must 
be  established  before  the  superstructure  can  stand. 

But  let  us  now  review  the  evidence  which  these  early 
fathers  furnish  against  the  system  of  Dr.  C.  For,  as 
has  been  already  observed,  even  the  epistles  of  Igna- 
tius in  this  respect  are  not  supposed  to  have  been  inter- 
polated ;  since,  for  this  the  state  and  progress  of  eccle- 
siastical affairs  in  the  following  ages  evidently  furnish 
no  probable  motive,  as  they  plainly  did  for  such 
freedoms  on  the  opposite  side. 

Before  I  proceed  to  this,  however,  I  beg  leave  to 
remind  the  reader  that  there  was  one  other  earlier  Chris- 
tian father,  after  the  apostles,  of  whose  writings  Dr.  C. 
seems  content  to  make  but  little  use  :  I  mean  Clemens 
Romanus — Clement  of  Rome.  The  writings  of  this 
father  are  characterized  by  Dr.  Campbell  as  "  the  most 
respectable  remains  we  have  of  Christian  antiquity, 
next  to  the  inspired  writings."  He  then  proceeds  thus : 
"  The  piece  I  allude  to  is  the  first  epistle  of  Clemens 
Romanus  to  the  Corinthians,  as  it  is  commonly  styled, 
but  as  it  styles  itself,  '  The  Epistle  of  the  Church  of 
God  at  Rome  to  the  Church  of  God  at  Corinth.'  It  is 
the  same  Clement  whom  Paul  (Philip,  iv,  3)  calls  his 
fellow-lal)ourer,  and  one  of  those  whose  names  are  in 
the  book  of  life.  There  we  are  told,  chap,  xlii,  that 
*  the  apostles,  having  preached  the  gospel  in  countries 


38  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

and  towns,  constituted  the  first-fruits  of  their  ministry, 
whom  they  approved  by  the  Spirit,  bishops  and  deacons 
of  those  who  should  beheve.'  And  in  order  to  satisfy 
us  that  he  did  not  use  these  words  in  a  vague  manner, 
for  church  officers  in  general,  but  as  expressive  of  all 
the  distinct  orders  that  were  established  by  them  in  the 
church,  he  adds :  '  Nor  was  this  a  new  device,  inas- 
much as  bishops  and  deacons  had  been  pointed  out 
many  ages  before, — -for  thus  says  the  Scripture,  "  /  will 
constitute  their  bishops  in  righteousness,  and  their  deacons 
infaithP  '  The  passage  quoted  is  the  last  clause  of  the 
17th  verse  of  the  60th  chapter  of  Isaiah.  It  is  thus  ren- 
dered in  our  version  :  '  I  will  make  thine  officers  peace, 
and  thine  exactors  righteousness.'  Whether  this  vene- 
rable ancient  has  given  a  just  translation,  or  made  a 
proper  application  of  this  prediction,  is  not  the  point  in 
question ;  it  is  enough  that  it  evinces  what  his  notion 
was  of  the  established  ministers  then  in  the  church. 
And  if  (as  no  critic  ever  questioned,  and  as  his  own 
argument  necessarily  requires,)  he  means  the  same  by 
bishops  with  those  who  in  the  Acts  are  called  npcapwepot, 
whom  the  apostles  Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained  in  every 
church,  and  whom  Clement  in  other  parts  of  this  epistle 
also  calls  npsapvTFpot, — namely,  the  ordinary  teachers  ;  it 
would  seem  strange  that  the  bishop,  properly  so  called, 
the  principal  officer  of  all,  should  be  the  only  one  in 
his  account  of  whom  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  sacred  writ, 
had  given  no  previous  intimation.  Nay,  do  not  the 
words  of  this  father  manifestly  imply  that  any  other 
office  in  the  church  than  the  two  he  had  mentioned, 
might  be  justly  styled  a  new  device  or  invention? 
Dr.  Pearson,  in  his  Vindicise  Ignatianae,  insists  much 
that  whenever  any  of  the  fathers  purposely  enumerate 
the  different  orders  in  the  church,  they  mention  always 
three.  If  the  above  account  given  by  Clement  is  not  to 
be  considered  an  enumeration,  I  know  not  what  to  call 
it.     If  two  were  actually  all  the  orders  then  in  the 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  39 

church,  could  he  have  introduced  the  mention  of  them 
by  telhng  us  he  was  about  to  give  a  hst  or  catalogue, 
or  even  to  make  an  enumeration  of  the  ecclesiastical 
degrees  ?  Is  this  a  way  of  prefacing  the  mention  of  so 
small  a  number  as  two  ?  It  is  this  writer's  express  de- 
sign to  acquaint  us  what  the  apostles  did  for  accommo- 
dating the  several  churches  they  planted,  in  pastors  and 
assistants.  And  can  we  suppose  he  would  have  omitted 
the  chief  point  of  all,  namely,  that  they  supplied  every 
church  with  a  prelate,  ruler,  or  head,  if  any  one  had 
really  been  entitled  to  this  distinction  ? 

"  If  it  should  be  urged  that  under  the  term  eTnaKonot,  both 
functions  of  bishop  and  presbyter  are  comprehended,  it 
is  manifest  that,  as  it  was  the  writer's  scope  to  mark  the 
different  offices  established  as  being  predicted  by  the 
prophets  in.  the  Old  Testament,  there  cannot  be  a 
stronger  indication  that  there  was  then  no  material,  if 
any,  difference  between  them,  and  that  they  were  pro- 
perly denominated  and  considered  as  one  office.  The 
appellatives  also  by  which  they  are  denoted,  are  inva- 
riably employed  by  him  in  the  plural  number  as  being 
equally  applicable  to  all.  It  is  said  in  chap,  i,  roic 
riyovfievoic  v,uuv  viroTaaao/xEvoi,  Submitting  to  your  govcmors  or 
guides.  It  is  remarkable  also  that  the  word  yyovfievoc,  here 
used  in  the  plural  of  all  their  pastors,  is  one  of  those  terms 
which  came  afterward  to  be  appropriated  to  the  bishop. 
Nay,  since  it  must  be  admitted,  that  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  well  as  in  the  ancient  Christian  monument  just 
now  quoted,  the  words  eTnaKonoc  and  npea^vrepoc  are  not 
occasionally,  but  uniformly,  used  synonymously;  the 
very  discovery  that  there  was  not  any  distinctive  appel- 
lation for  such  an  office  as  is  now  called  bishop  is  not 
of  inconsiderable  weight  to  prove  that  it  did  not  exist. 
We  know  that  every  other  office,  ordinary  and  extraor- 
dinary, is  sufficiently  distinguished  by  an  appropriated 
name. 

"  But  I  cannot  help  observing  further  concerning  this 


40  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

epistle  of  Clement,  that  though  it  was  written  with  the 
special  view  of  conciliating  the  minds  of  the  Corinthians 
to  their  pastors,  commonly  in  this  letter  called  presby- 
ters, some  of  whom  the  people  had  turned  out  of  their 
offices,  or  expelled  {awo  ttjq  emoKonric)  from  their  bishoprick, 
as  his  words  literally  imply,  there  is  not  the  most  distant 
hint  of  any  superior  to  these  TTpeaiSvTEiooi,  wdiose  proper 
province  it  was,  if  there  had  been  such  a  superior,  to 
inspect  their  conduct  and  to  judge  of  it;  and  whose 
authority  the  people  had  treated  most  contemptuously, 
in  presuming,  without  so  much  as  consulting  him,  to 
degrade  their  presbyters.  It  was  natural,  it  was  even 
unavoidable,  to  take  notice  in  such  a  case  of  the  usurpa- 
tion whereof  they  had  been  guilty  upon  their  bishop — 
the  chief  shepherd,  who  had  the  oversight  of  all  the 
under  shepherds,  the  presbyters  as  well  as  of  the  people, 
and  to  w^hom  alone,  if  there  had  been  such  a  person, 
those  presbyters  were  accountable  for  their  conduct. 
Yet  there  is  not  so  much  as  a  syllable  in  all  this  long 
letter  that  points  this  way.  On  the  contrary,  he 
argues  from  the  power  with  which  those  presbyters 
themselves  were  vested,  and  of  which  they  could  not 
be  justly  stripped  whilst  they  discharged  faithfully  the 
duties  of  their  office.  I  will  appeal  to  any  candid  person 
who  is  tolerably  conversant  in  the  Christian  antiquities, 
whether  he  thinks  it  possible  that  in  the  third  century 
such  a  letter,  on  such  an  emergence,  could  have  been 
written  to  any  Christian  congregation  by  any  man  in 
his  senses,  wherein  there  was  no  more  notice  taken  of 
the  bishop,  who  was  then,  in  a  manner,  every  thing  in 
his  own  church,  than  if  he  were  nothing  at  all.  And 
that  there  was  so  great  a  difference,  in  less  than  two  cen- 
turies, in  people's  style  and  sentiments  on  this  article, 
is  an  uncontrovertible  proof  that  in  that  period  things 
came  to  stand  on  a  very  different  foot.  This  ej)istle 
of  Clement,  who  was  a  disciple  of  Paul,  appears  indeed 
from  one  passage  to  have  been  written  so  early  as  before 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  41 

the  destruction  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  conse- 
quently before  the  seventy-second  year  of  Christ,  accord- 
ing to  the  vulgar  computation.  And  if  so,  it  was  written 
before  the  Apocalypse,  and  perhaps  some  other  parts 
of  the  sacred  canon.  Nothing,  therefore,  that  is  not 
Scripture,  can  be  of  greater  authority  in  determining  a 
point  of  fact,  as  is  the  question  about  the  constitution 
of  the  apostolical  church.""^ 

It  is  proper  to  note  here,  that  Dr.  Campbell  afterward 
adds  a  general  observation,  to  which  he  invites  the 
attention  of  the  judicious  and  candid,  that  what  he  has 
advanced  does  not  affect  the  law^fulness,  or  even,  in 
certain  circumstances,  the  expediency  of  the  episcopal 
model ;  but  only  exposes  the  arrogance  of  pretending 
to  a  jus  divimim,  [a  divine  right.]  He  is  satisfied  (as 
he  continues,  with  a  manly  and  Christian  frankness 
worthy  of  all  commendation  and  of  more  general  imita- 
tion) that  no  form  of  polity  can  plead  such  an  exclu- 
sive charter  as  that  phrase,  in  its  present  acceptation, 
is  understood  to  imply, — that  the  claim  is  clearly  the 
offspring  of  sectarian  bigotry  and  ignorance. — That  in 
regard  to  those  polities  which  obtain  at  present  in  the 
different  Christian  sects,  he  ingenuously  owns  that  he 
has  not  found  one  of  all  that  he  has  examined,  w^hich 
can  be  said  perfectly  to  coincide  with  the  model  of 
the  apostolic  church.  Some  indeed  are  nearer,  and 
some  are  more  remote  ;  but  this  we  may  say  with  free- 
dom, that  if  a  particular  form  of  polity  had  been  essen- 
tial to  the  church,  it  would  have  been  laid  down  in  a 
different  manner  in  the  sacred  books. — That  the  very 
hypothesis,  in  his  opinion,  is  repugnant  to  the  spiritual 
nature  of  the  evangelical  economy,  and  savours  grossly 
of  the  conceit  with  which  the  Jews  were  intoxicated  of 
the  Messiah's  secular  kingdom, — a  conceit  with  which 
many  like-minded  Christians  are  intoxicated  still. f 

•  Lectures,  pp.  70-72.  \lb.,  pp.  73,  74. 


42  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

Let  it  be  observed  also,  that  I  quote  Dr.  Campbell 
freely,  not  because  I  agree  with  him  in  all  respects,  but 
because,  in  the  main  points  in  this  controversy,  as 
between  high  church  and  us,  his  able  work  fully  sus- 
tains our  views  as  above  stated. 

I  now  return  to  Ignatius.  In  speaking  of  his  epistles 
Dr.  C.  remarks,  p.  18,  that  "  in  every  instance  the  bishop 
is  mentioned  in  such  terms  as  show  that  he  w^as  the  only 
one  in  the  church  addressed."  This  Dr.  C.  marks  em- 
phatically, as  is  here  done.  The  assertion  is  a  very 
extraordinary  one,  and,  I  suppose,  cannot  have  been 
intended  to  convey  the  meaning-  which  the  face  of  it 
imports.  For  if  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  epistles,  he 
will  find,  on  the  contrary,  that  "in  every  instance," 
except  the  epistle  to  Polycarp,  it  is  "the  church"  that 
is  addressed.  And  although  Dr.  C.  maintains  that  with- 
out a  bishop,  such  as  he  describes,  there  is  no  church, 
yet  I  am  not  aware  that  he  has  yet  taken  upon  himself 
to  assert  that  the  bishop  alone  is  "  the  church." 

But,  passing-  this  obscure  passage,  as  perhaps  merely 
wanting  in  felicity  of  expression,  is  it  not  singular  that 
Ignatius,  in  addressing  Polj^carp,  himself  a  bishop,  and 
a  disciple  of  St.  John,  should  say  to  him,  '■'Hearken 
unto  the  hishop,  that  God  also  may  hearken  unto  you. 
My  soul  he  security  for  them  that  suhnit  to  their  bishop, 
with  their  presbyters  and  deacoyis^  Yet  so  Dr.  C.  cites 
him  ;  and  this  is  one  of  the  passages  which  he  specially 
marks  with  Italics,  as  above. ^  The  passage  itself,  in 
such  an  epistle,  is  foisted  as  impertinently  as  the  lan- 
guage is  profane,  and  the  sentiment  antichristian. 

Dr.  C.  refers  to  Dr.  Miller,  as  observing  that  several 
of  the  early  fathers  "  expressly  represent  presbyters  as 
the  successors  of  the  apostles  :  among  others  Ignatius'^ 
And  afterward  adds,  "  The  reader  may  easily  determine 
how  far  this   assertion  is   correct,  by  turning  to   the 

•  Appendix,  p.  xxiv. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  43 

passages  in  Italic  letters,  in  tlie  appendix  to  these 
pages. "^ 

Well,  I  have  done  so  : — confining  myself  to  the  pas- 
sages marked  by  Dr.  C.  himself.  And  what  does  the 
reader  suppose  is  the  result  I  Is  he  at  all  prepared  to 
anticipate  that  several  of  these  very  passages  expressly 
confirm  Dr.  Miller's  assertion  l  If,  considering  the  bold- 
ness with  which  Dr.  C.  makes  the  reference,  he  deem 
this  incredible,  then  I  assure  him  that  I  quote  them  as 
they  stand  in  Dr.  C.'s  own  appendix,  and  as  marked  by 
himself;  except  that  I  put  in  small  capitals  the  words 
which  represent  presbyters  as  successors  of  the  apostles, 
which  Dr.  C.  leaves  in  Italics,  in  common  with  the  rest 
of  the  passage. 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Magnesians,  sect.  6,  Ignatius 
says,  "/  exhort  you  that  ye  study  to  do  all  things  in 
divine  concord :  your  bishop  presiding  i?i  the  place  of  God, 

YOUR  PRESBYTERS  IX  THE  PLACE  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF 

THE  APOSTLES,  a?id  yoiir  deacons  most  dear  to  me  being 
intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ. ''j 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Tralhans,  sect.  2,  he  says,  "  For 
whereas  ye  are  subject  to  your  bishop,  as  to  Jesus  Christ, 
ye  appear  to  me  to  live  not  after  the  manner  of  men,  but 
according  to  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  therefore  necessary,  that 
as  ye  do,  so  7vithout  your  bishop  you  shoidd  do  nothing : 

ALSO,  BE   YE   SUBJECT  TO   YOUR   PRESBYTERS,   AS  TO  THE 

APOSTLES  OF  Jesus  Christ  OUR  HOPE  ;  iji  whoM  if  we 
walk,  we  shall  be  found  in  him.  The  deacons  also,  as 
being  the  ministers  of  the  mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ.'" X 

Again :  in  the  same  epistle  to  the  Trallians,  sect.  3, 
he  says :  ^^  In  like  manner  let  all  reverence  the  deacons 
as  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  bishop  as  the  Father,  and  the 

PRESBYTERS  AS  THE  SANHEDRIM  OF  GoD,  AND  COL- 
LEGE OF  THE  APOSTLES. "t 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Smymeans,  he  says :  "  See  that 

*  Dr.  C.   p.  19.  t  Appendix,  p.  x.  :^Ib.,  p.  xii. 


44  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

ye  all  follow  your  hishop,  as  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father ; 
and  THE  PRESBYTERY  AS  THE  APOSTLES  ;  and  reverence 
the  deacons  as  the  command  of  God.''''* 

An  examination  of  the  above  passages  may  aid  the 
reader  in  forming  a  judgment  of  the  incautiousness,  to 
use  no  stronger  term,  with  which  Dr.  C.  makes  the 
most  positive  and  extraordinary  affirmations.  Of  that 
cited  above  from  the  6th  section  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Magnesians,  he  says,  "  Take  the  whole  together,  and 
the  meaning  is  precisely  the  reverse  of  that  which 
Dr.  Miller  represents  it  to  be,"  p.  19.  Now  Dr.  Miller's 
statement  was,  that  Ignatius  in  that  passage  represents 
presbyters  as  the  successors  of  the  apostles.  This  then, 
at  j)resent,  is  the  single  question ;  and  Dr.  C.  must  be 
held  to  it.  Does  that  whole  passage  of  Ignatius,  taken 
together,  represent  presbyters  as  the  successors  of  the 
apostles,  or  does  it  represent  "  precisely  the  reverse  ?" 
The  former  is  Dr.  Miller's  assertion,  the  latter  is  Dr.  C.'s. 
I  leave  the  reader,  after  looking  back  at  the  passage,  to 
judge  between  them. 

Dr.  C.  himself,  indeed,  very  soon  afterward,  p.  20, 
seems  smitten  with  the  conviction  that  Ignatius  does 
"represent  the  presbyters  as  standing  in  the  place  of 
the  apostles."  For  he  there  adds,  (after  mentioning 
Dr.  Miller's  farther  quotation  of  the  3d  section  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Trallians  also,)  "  If  these  passages  repre- 
sent the  presbyters  as  standing  in  the  place  of  the 
apostles,  they  place  the  bishop  as  far  above  them  as  he 
could  by  any  language  be  represented  to  be."  I  grant 
it: — even  as  far — I  pause,  and  am  shocked  to  repeat 
such  language, — yes,  even  as  far  as  God  is  above  the 
apostles  !  Certainly  language  cannot  go  higher.  It  is 
indeed,  reader,  a  sober  verity.  Dr.  C.  himself,  a  little 
after,  on  the  same  page,  repeats  with  manifest  approba- 
tion: "They  represent  the  bishop  as  standing  in  the 
place  of  God." 

•  Appendix,  p.  xxii. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  45 

Such  then  is  a  Christian  bishop,  according  to  the 
epistles  of  Ignatius,  which  Dr.  C.  pronounces  "  most 
unexceptionable ;"  and  such,  consequently,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  Dr.  C,  is  a  Christian  bishop  still,  "  standing  in 
the  place  of  God,  as  far  above  presbyters, — and  cer- 
tainly, of  course,  above  deacons,  laics,  and  the  whole 
church  beside  his  single  self, — as  God  above  the  apos- 
tles !"  If  deeds  of  ineffable  atrocity  may  be  expressed 
as  outheroding  Herod,  surely  the  challenging  of  such 
insufferable,  even  infinite  pre-eminence  for  the  episcopal 
dignity  and  authority,  may  not  in  appositely  be  branded 
as  outpoping  (if  I  may  coin  this  term  for  the  special 
occasion)  the  pope  himself. 

In  truth,  it  is  very  far  worse  than  popery.  For, 
according  to  popery,  there  is  but  one  supreme  sovereign 
bishop,  the  absolute  ruler  of  the  whole  church.  But 
according  to  this  scheme,  each  and  every  bishop  is  such 
within  his  diocese,  of  whatever  extent.  And  thus  the 
entire  church  of  Christ  on  earth  must  be  subjected,  if 
this  notion  prevail,  to  the  absolute  domination  of  an 
unlimited  number  of  popes,  instead  of  one, — against 
whom,  however  arbitrary,  partial,  or  oppressive  their 
acts  may  be,  there  is  no  redress,  and  no  appeal  but  to 
God.^ 

In  remarking  on  the  writings  of  Cyprian,  bishop  of 
Carthage,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  Dr. 
Jortin  observes,  that  there  are  many  passages  in  them 
containing  high  notions  of  episcopal  authority  and  eccle- 

*  See  Dr.  Cook's  draft  of  the  episcopate  of  Bishop  Timothy,  the  model 
by  divine  title,  on  his  plan,  of  all  succeeding  hishops,  p.  8.  In  the  Litany 
of  the  Church  of  Eng-land  there  was  formerly  this  petition, — "  From  the 
tyranny  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and  all  his  detestable  enormities,  good 
Lord  deliver  usy  By  order  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  who  was  somew iiat  ten- 
derly concerned  not  to  offend  the  pope,  tliis  passage  was  struck  out.  But 
surely  Protestants  of  the  present  day  may  most  rationally,  most  scripturally, 
and  most  devoutly  pray, — From  an  episcopal  scheme,  which  claims  by  divine 
right  the  elevation  of  fallen,  fallible  men  to  such  dignity  and  power  above 
their  fellow-men,  their  fellow-Christians,  and  their  fellow-ministers,  good 
Lord  deliver  us ! 


46  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

siastical  jurisdiction.  "  While  he  strenuously  opposed 
the  domination  of  one  pope,"  continues  the  learned  and 
ingenious  archdeacon,  "  he  seemed  in  some  manner  to 
make  as  many  popes  as  bishops,  and  mere  arithmetical 
naughts  of  the  rest  of  the  Christians ;  which  yet,  I 
believe,"  he  adds,  "  was  not  his  intent."* 

Charity  would  lead  us  to  hope  as  much  of  the  inten- 
tions of  Dr.  C. 

Whatever  rank  then  Dr.  C.  may  be  disposed  to  assert 
for  such  bishops  as  he  contends  for,  if  presbyters  stand 
in  the  place  of  the  apostles,  this  is  enough  for  us.  We 
neither  ask  nor  wish  any  thing  more  or  higher.  And 
whether  this  be  not  the  explicit  testimony  of  those  epis- 
tles of  lo^natius  which  Dr.  C.  avers  to  be  g-enuine  and 
most  unexceptionable,  I  shall  submit  to  the  judgment 
of  the  reader,  after  laying  before  him  the  following 
recapitulation  of  the  specific  clauses  touching  this  point. 

"  Your  preshjters  in  the  ijlace  of  the  coimcil  of  the 
apostles.'''  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians,  sect.  6. 

That  is,  as  the  preceding  clause  demonstrates,  '^  your 
presbyters  [presiding]  in  the  place  of  the  council  of  the 
apostles." 

^^  Also  he  ye  subject  to  your  presbyters  as  to  the  apos- 
tles of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope.''''  Epistle  to  the  Trallians, 
sect.  2. 

^^  And  the  presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and 
college  of  the  apostles.''^  lb.,  sect.  3. 

That  is,  as  the  context  shows,  Let  all  reverence  the 
presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and  college  of  the 
apostles. 

"  And  the  presbytery  as  the  apostles.''^  Epistle  to  the 
Smyrneans,  sect.  8. 

That  is,  as  the  context  here  also  demonstrates,  See 
that  ye  all  follow  the  presbytery  as  the  apostles. 

I  remark  here  by  the  way,  and  shall  have  occasion  to 

•  Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i,  p.  415. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  47 

notice  it  again,  that  by  the  "  presbytery,"  in  this  place, 
is  incontestably  meant— not  an  office — but  tlie  body  of 
presbyters,  as  contradistinguished  from  the  bisliop  and 
the  deacons,  severally,  and  from  them  both  together. 
The  reader  will  please  bear  in  mind  this  ancient  use  of 
the  term  by  an  apostolical  father,  as  Dr.  C.  contends, 
a  disciple  of  the  apostles,  and  so  near  the  apostolic  age. 
It  will  be  important  in  the  argument  in  another  place. 

It  may  be  proper  also  to  observe  at  this  stage,  that  it 
is  not  my  purpose,  or  my  place,  to  volunteer  in  the  vin- 
dication of  Dr.  Miller.  In  the  main  point, — the  validity 
of  ordination  by  presbyters, — that  eminent  divine  and 
we  entirely  agree.  In  others  we  differ,  and,  I  trust, 
aijrce  to  differ ;  neither  of  us  refrarding-  a  difference  of 
judgment  or  practice  in  matters  of  polity,  a  sufficient 
occasion  for  schism  among  Christians,  in  the  true  Scrip- 
tural sense  of  this  term ;  but  still  recognising'  the  com- 
munion of  each  other  as  within  the  covenant  mercies 
of  the  Father  of  mercies,  and  the  comprehensive  pale 
of  the  catholic  church."^ 

I  may  be  permitted  here  also  to  say,  that  a  very  large 
portion  of  Dr.  C.'s  authorities  and  arguments  against 
the  Presbyterian  scheme  of  parity,  as  advocated  by 
Dr.  Miller,  are  entirely  irrelevant  and  harmless,  as  will 
hereafter  be  show^n,t  in  regard  to  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal polity,  which  recognises  both  an  order  of  bishops, 
officially  superior  to  presbyters,  and  the  order  of  dea- 
cons as  ministers  of  Christ. 

In  combating  Dr.  Miller,  Dr.  C.  occasionally  avails 
himself  of  a  reference  to  Methodist  usages,  to  help  out 
his  argument.  For  example : — from  the  language  of 
Ignatius  to  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  charging  him 
to  let  his  assemblies  be  more  full, — to  inquire  into  all 
by  name, — and  not  to  overlook  the  men  or  maid  Ser- 

*  See  note  B,  Appendix.   [Never  written. — Ed.] 

t  [This  the  author  probably  designed  to  do  in  the  second  part  of  his 
Essay,  which,  as  has  been  already  stated,  was  never  written. — Ed.] 


48  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

vants  ;  Dr.  Miller  contends  that  the  bishop  of  that  day 
v^^as  the  pastor  of  a  single  church,  and  not  a  diocesan 
in  the  modern  sense.  Dr.  C.  answers,  "  This  can  be 
done  without  personal  acquaintance.  The  preachers 
of  the  Methodist  travelling  connection  on  many  circuits 
have  above  a  thousand,  and  on  some  twelve  or  fourteen 
hundred  persons  under  their  care,  sometimes  spread 
over  circuits  of  fifty  or  sixty  miles  in  extent,  and  they 
inquire  into  all  hij  name, — not  overlooking  the  men  and 
maid  servants, — everij  four  weeks.'''' '^  This  is  certainly 
a  high  compliment  to  us.  I  only  wish  it  were  strictly 
merited. 

But  if  our  economy, — may  I  say,  without  seeming  to 
assume  too  much,  our  excellent  economy, — helps  Dr.  C. 
out  in  one  instance,  does  not  justice  require  that  Dr. 
Miller  should  have  the  benefit  of  it  in  another?  for  it 
is  in  truth  a  middle  ground,  which  certainly  solves  very 
many  of  the  difficulties  between  the  two  extremes,  and 
on  which  the  contending  parties  might  happily  meet, 
were  there  mutually  that  disposition  to  Christian  con- 
cord which  we  should  be  happy  to  see  prevail.  Dr.  C 
says,  for  example,  in  another  place,  that  if  Dr.  Miller 
could  establish  one  of  his  statements  alluded  to,  ''he 
would  make  a  difficulty  which  he  would  find  it  not  easy 
to  solve.  For  no  presbyter,  the  pastor  of  a  church,  has 
a  presbytery,  or  council  of  presbyters,  in  his  church, 
who  are  his  brothers  and  colleagues.'' i 

Now,  if  Dr.  C.  or  Dr.  M.  will  look  again  into  the 
usage  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  they  will  find 
an  easy  solution  of  that  difficulty  also.  The  very  thing 
alleged  by  Dr.  C.  as  never  existing,  exists  at  this  mo- 
ment among  us,  in  New- York,  in  Baltimore,  in  Charles- 
ton, in  Cincinnati,  and  in  many  »other  places  which 
might  be  named. 

The  next  ancient  Christian  writer  to  whose  testimony 

*  Page  26.  f  Page  79. 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED,  49 

reference  is  made  in  this  controversy,  is  Poly  carp* 
Dr.  C.  indeed  seems  not  to  have  found  much  in  this 
father  to  his  purpose,  although  he  wrote  after  Ignatius, 
and  consequently  might  be  expected  to  speak  still  more 
strongly  on  the  distinction  of  the  three  orders,  if  it  then 
existed,  since  it  is  well  known  that  after  it  once  obtained 
footing  it  never  retrograded,  but  steadily  advanced  till 
the  completion  of  the  entire  hierarchal  structure. 

It  is  true,  as  I  have  before  remarkedj  that  Dr.  C, 
claims  the  testimony  of  Polycarp  as  identical  with  that 
of  Ignatius,  in  consequence  of  some  general  expres- 
sions of  the  former  in  regard  to  the  epistles,  and  the 
personal  w^orth  of  the  latter.  In  answer  to  this,  I  have 
above  said  that  all  the  arguments  which  go  to  disprove 
the  genuineness,  or  at  least  the  integrity,  of  the  epistles 
ascribed  to  Ignatius,  serve  equally  to  render  it  at  least 
entirely  uncertain  whether  Polycarp  ever  saw  them  as 
we  now  have  them,  and  especially  those  very  passages 
on  which  Dr.  C.  mainly  relies,  which  are  especially  sus- 
picious, and  consequently  cannot  be  fairly  made  the 
ground  of  any  certain  argument.  But,  even  supposing 
it  otherwise  :  then,  according  to  Dr.  C.'s  own  showino-, 
we  have  the  additional  testimony  of  Polycarp  that 
presbyters  stand  in  the  place  of  the  apostles.  In  proof 
of  which  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  quotations  made 
above,  from  Dr.  C.'s  own  edition  of  Ignatius's  epistles. 
And  this,  I  repeat,  concedes  all  that  we  have  the  slight- 
est inclination  even  to  ask  in  the  arg-ument. 

Dr.  C.  urges  the  fact  that  if  the  epistles  of  Ignatius 
"  represent  the  presbyters  as  standing  in  the  place  of  the 
apostles,  they  place  the  bishop  as  far  above  them  as 
he  could  by  any  language  be  represented  to  be  :"  p.  20. 
What,  then,  will  he  say  to  the  testimony  of  Polycarp, 
who,  throughout  his  whole  epistle  to  the  Philippians, 

*  Dr.  Miller  places  Polycarp  in  clironolonrjcal  order  before  Ignatius.  Dr. 
Campbell,  however,  more  correctly  I  think,  remarks  that  the  writings  of 
Ignatius  are  supposed  to  have  preceded  those  of  Polycarp.    Lectures,  p.  73. 

4 


50  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

speaks  of  two  orders  only  of  -ministers,  viz.,  presbyters 
and  deacons,  never  even  naming  that  of  bishop, — but, 
on  the  contrary,  enjoining  tlie  people  to  be  subject  to 
their  presbyters  and  deacons  as  to  God  and  Christ. 
Could  he,  by  any  language,  have  represented  any  order 
higher  than  this  ?  and  had  he  known  any  order  in  the 
church  then  superior  to  that  of  the  presbyters,  to  which 
they  themselves  owed  subjection,  could  he,  even  de- 
cently, have  adopted  the  highest  possible  similitude  to 
illustrate  the  obedience  due  to  their  order?  Nay,  farther, 
when  in  the  same  epistle  he  lays  down  the  duties  and 
qualifications  of  deacons  and  presbyters,  wherein  every 
thing  befitting  judges  and  governors  is  included,  and 
those  of  tlip  people  also  throughout  the  epistle,  is  it  not 
unaccountable  that  he  should  never  even  mention  or 
allude  to  w^hat  was  proper  on  the  part  of  the  higher 
order,  or  on  the  part  of  the  presbyters,  deacons,  and 
people,  toward  such  higher  order,  if  he  knew  of  any 
such  then  existing  ?  Let  common  sense  answer  these 
questions."^ 

*  A  specimen  of  the  facility  with  which  Dr.  C.  begs  a  question,  when  he 
can  find  no  more  logical  mode  of  settling  it,  is  furnished  in  a  remark  which 
he  makes  respecting  Polycarp,  p.  84.  He  had  just  observed  that  Dr.  Miller 
roundly  admits,  in  the  outset  of  his  reference  to  this  father,  that  Polycarp 
speaks  of  two  orders  of  ministers  ;  and  then  adds, — "  and  when  we  know 
that  he  himself  belonged  to  a  third."  Now  does  not  Dr.  C.  "  know"  that 
this  is  the  very  point  in  debate  1  Yet  nothing  is  more  common  than  such 
dogmatizing  throughout  his  book.  Another  similar  instance  just  strikes  my 
eye,  near  the  same  place,  p.  85.  He  had  just  referred  again  to  what  is 
alleged  from  Ignatius,  "in  support  of  the  three  orders;"  and  then  adds, 
"  that  we  could  not  have  any  thing  of  an  opposite  character  from  Polycarp, 
is  evident  from  the  circumstance  of  his  being  himself  bishop  of  the  churck 
at  Smyrna,  with  presbi/ters  under  him^  Is  evident  !  In  what  school  of 
logic  has  such  arguing  been  learned  "?  If  the  simple  fact  that  Polycarp  was 
bishop,  superintendent,  overseer,  or  rector  of  the  church  at  Smyrna,  with 
presbyters  under  him,  proves  conclusively  that  he  was  therefore  necessarily 
of  a  third  order  of  ministers,  by  divine  right,  inherently  and  essentially  dis- 
tinct from  and  superior  to  the  order  of  presbyters,  then  the  controversy  is 
ended.  But  surely  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  remind  the  reader,  if  it  be  to 
remind  Dr.  C,  that  this  is  still  the  precise  point  in  dispute.  Tlie  very 
same  sophism  is  used  by  Dr.  C.  on  the  next  page  (86)  in  regard  to  Cle- 
ment. I  will  only  add  bore,  that  the  whole  of  his  effort,  pp.  8,4,  85,  to 
account  consistently  with  his  (Dr.  C.'s)  sclieme,  for  Polvcarp's  omission  of 

4^- 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  51 

I  cannot  say,  with  Dr.  C,  that  I  think  the  represent- 
ing of  any  order  in  the  church  as  standing  in  the  place 
of  God,  or  the  reverence  and  obedience  due  to  it,  by 
that  which  we  owe  to  the  Ahuighty,  "  most  unexcep- 
tionable." For  my  own  part,  I  humbly  think  such  com- 
parisons, whether  in  Ignatius  or  in  Polycarp,  very 
exceptionable.  But  then,  if  one  early  father  thought 
proper  to  use  them  in  reference  to  bishops,  and  another, 
his  contemporary,  who  was  also  an  apostolical  father, 
and  the  disciple  of  an  apostle,  did  so  in  like  manner  in 
reference  to  presbyters,  is  not  the  argument  from  their 
au<"hority  and  language  quite  as  good  in  the  latter  case 
as  in  the  former  l 

In  regard  to  the  form  of  polity,  however,  the  fact  is, 
that  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  as  w^e  have 
them,  cannot  both,  as  Dr.  Campbell  remarks,  be  made 
applicable  to  the  same  state  of  the  church. 

The  difference  between  them  is  not  a  diversity  in 
style,  but  a  repugnance  in  sentiment :  so  that  we  are 
forced  to  conclude  that  in  the  writings  of  one  or  the 
other  there  must  have  been  something  spurious  or  inter- 
polated. "Now,"  continues  the  same  able  critic,  "I 
have  heard  no  argument  used  against  the  authenticity 
of  Polycarp's  letter  equally  cogent  as  some  of  the  argu- 
ments employed  against  the  authenticity  of  the  epistles 
of  Ignatius.  And,  indeed,  the  state  of  the  church,  in  no 
subsequent  period,  can  well  account  for  such  a  forgery 
as  the  epistle  of  the  former  to  the  Philippians ;  whereas 
the  ambition  of  the  ecclesiastics,  for  which  some  of  the 
following  centuries  were  remarkable,  renders  it  ex- 
tremely easy  to  account  for  the  nauseous  repetition  of 

any  mention  whatever  throughout  his  epistle,  of  any  such  supenjr  third 
order,  is  totally  overthrown  bv  his  using  the  highest  similitude  possible,  as 
above  st.Ued,  to  illu^'rate  the  order  of  presbyters  :;nd  the  obedience  due  to 
them  ;  a  similitude,  certainly,  which  he  could  nttt  with  any  propriety,  or 
even  decency,  liave  applied  to  this  order,  had  he  known  any  higher  in  the 
church. 


52  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED'. 

obedience  and  subjection  to  the  bishop,  presbyters,  and 
deacons,  to  be  found  in  the  letters  of  Ignatius."  ^ 

I  maj  add  here,  that  Irencsus,  who  is  the  next  of  the 
ancient  fathers  introduced,  testifies  of  Poly  carp,  who, 
as  Irenseus  affirms,  was  taught  by  the  apostles,  and  con- 
versed with  many  of  those  who  had  seen  our  Lord,  that 
"  he  always  taught  those  things  which  he  had  learned 
from  the  apostles,  w^hich  he  likewise  delivered  to  the 
church,  and  which  are  alone  true."  Book  iii,  chap.  3, 
Against  Heresies.  In  the  same  paragraph  he  particu- 
larly mentions  the  "  most  excellent  epistle  of  Polycarp 
to  the  Philippians,  above  cited,  from  which,"  he  adds, 
*'  they  who  wish  and  have  regard  for  their  own  salva- 
tion, can  learn  the  character  of  his  faith,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  truth." 

Such  then  were  Polycarp's  views  of  church  order,  at 
least  in  the  apostolical  Philippian  church,  and  such  Ire- 
nseus's  commendation  of  the  "  most  excellent  epistle" 
containing  them. 

The  objection  that  Polycarp  was  himself  a  bishop, 
will  be  noticed  hereafter.     I  now  proceed  to  Irenceus. 

At  what  precise  time  Irenseus  wrote,  authors  are  not 
agreed.  Dr.  Campbell  says  he  is  supposed  to  have 
written  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Lord 
King  places  him  about  the  year  184.  And  Dr.  Miller 
says  he  is  said  to  have  suffered  martyrdom  about  the 
year  202.  For  this  even  Dr.  C.  adopts  the  same  date, 
p.  81.  How  long  it  was  before  his  martyrdom  that  his 
work  against  heresies  was  written,  does  not  appear. 
There  is  one  passage  in  the  third  book,  however,  which 
strongly  inclines  me  to  adopt  the  latest  of  the  dates 
assigfued  for  him.  It  is  that  in  which  he  mentions  as  a 
thing  observable,  that  when  he  was  a  youth  he  himself 
had  seen  Polycarp  ;  and  states  at  the  same  time  that 
Polycarp  attained  a  very  great  age  before  his  martyr- 
dom.    Now  the  date  assigned  for  Polycarp's  writings 

*  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  97. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  53 

by  Lord  King  is  the  year  140,  and  it  is  probable  that 
they  were  at  least  not  much  earher ;  and  if  so,  then 
that  those  of  Irenseus  did  not  appear  till  considerably 
after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  probably  not 
till  toward  the  latter  part  of  it.  Now  it  is  acknow- 
ledged that  by  that  time  a  distinction  between  bishop 
and  presbyters,  as  of  different  orders,  began  to  prevail, 
although  it  was  much  less  considerable  than  it  became 
afterward.  This  fact,  therefore,  may  reasonably  be  sup- 
posed to  have  influenced  the  style  of  Irenseus's  writings, 
and  accounts  for  the  difference  in  this  respect  between 
him  and  Polycarp. 

In  regard  to  the  character  of  Ireneeus,  and  the  weight 
due  to  his  testimony,  I  wish  not  to  detract  from  it. 
Yet,  as  in  all  other  uninspired  human  compositions,  so 
also  in  those  of  the  ancient  Christian  writers  in  par- 
ticular, due  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  time  and 
the  circumstances  in  w^hich  they  wrote,  which  had  a 
pervading  influence  both  on  their  turn  of  thought  and 
their  style  of  expression.  And  in  regard  to  Irenseus 
himself,  notwithstandino^  Mosheim's  commendation  of 
the  "  erudition"  of  his  books  against  heresies,  for  that 
is  the  amount  of  it,  another  very  eminent  critic,  himself 
an  Episcopalian — I  mean  Archdeacon  Jortin — says  of 
that  ancient  father,  ''  I  fear  it  wdll  be  no  very  easy  task 
to  clear  him  entirely  from  the  imputation  of  credulity 
and  inaccuracy."* 

Dr.  C,  moreover,  seems  to  suppose,  or  leaves  his 
readers  to  suppose,  that  Irena^us  wrote  in  Latin;  and 
hence  he  appends  to  his  own  work  the  third  chapter  of 
the  third  book  of  Irenseus  against  heresies  in  Latin, 
without  stating  that  this  not  only  was  not  the  original, 
but  that,  even  as  a  translation,  it  is  pronounced  by  an 
able  judge  to  be  excessively  barbarous.j 

*  Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i,  p.  363. 
t  See  Dr.  Machine's  note,  Mosheim,  vol.  i,  p.  177, 


54  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED, 

In  introducing  his  quotations  from  Irenseus,  Dr.  C 
says,  "  The  following  is  a  translation  of  the  third  chap- 
ter of  the  third  of  those  books  Against  Heresies — "  * 
Would  not  readers  generally  infer  from  this,  that  he 
meant  a  translation  from  the  original  ?  Whereas,  if  he 
would  not  make  an  erroneous  impression,  he  should 
have  said, — The  following  is  a  translation  of  a  transla- 
tion :  to  which,  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Maclaine,  I  add, 
and  that  an  excessively  barbarous  one. 

Dr.  Miller  makes  a  quotation  from  the  fourth  book 
of  Irenseus,  ch.  xliv,  which  is  rendered  thus  :  "  We 
ought  therefore  to  adhere  to  ihose  presbyters  who  keep 
the  apostles'  doctrine,  and  together  with  the  preshyterial 
succession,  do  show  forth  sound  speech.  Such  presby- 
ters the  church  nourishes;  and  of  such  the  prophet 
says,  I  will  give  them  princes  in  peace,  and  bishops  in 
righteousness r  In  his  criticisms  on  this  quotation,  Dr. 
Cooke  says,  "  The  passage  runs  thus  in  Irengeus : 
*  Adhaerere  vero  his  qui,"'&c.  f  Would  not  readers 
generally  most  fairly  and  reasonably  infer  from  this, 
that  Dr.  C.  meant  to  convey  the  idea  that  these  were 
the  identical  words  of  Irenseus  himself?  It  may  not  be 
amiss  then  to  inform  such  that  this  is  altogether  a  mis- 
take ;  Irenseus  did  not  write  in  Latin  at  all,  but  in 
Greek :  and  that  we  have  not  even  an  opportunity  to 
compare  the  barbarous  Latin  of  his  translator,  in  this 
part  of  the  work,  with  the  original ;  since  the  first  book 
only  of  Irena3us  is  extant  in  the  original  Greek,  the  rest 
being  preserved  to  us  only  in  the  barbarous  Latin  trans- 
lation. Yet  on  this  Dr.  C.  would  build  criticisms  and 
inferences  of  such  immense  importance  to  the  very 
being  of  the  Christian  church !  I  pray  thee  have  us 
excused. 

But  I  will  take  Dr.  C.  on  his  own  criticism.  The 
phrase  "  cum  presbyteri  ordine,^'  from  the  Latin  transla^ 

♦Page71»  t  Page  76,  no^e. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  65 

tion  of  Irenreus,  is  rendered  in  Dr.  Millers  quotation, 
"  v.-itli  the  preshyterial  succession.^'  Now,  says  Dr.  C, 
"  To  bear  this  signification,  there  should  be  an  adjective 
to  agree  with  ordijie,  or  the  noun  should  be  in  the  plural, 
pi'eshyterorum.  As  it  stands,  it  can  only  mean  some- 
thing belonging  to  a  presbyter.  We  frequently  meet 
with  the  expression  successiones  cjnscoporum,  not  epis- 
copi :  so,  if  this  passage  meant  preshyterial  succession, 
or  a  succession  of  presbyters,  the  word  used  would 
have  been  preshjterorwn,  not  preshyte^i.'"*  Well,  let  us 
take,  then,  the  following  passage  from  the  same  Latin 
translation  of  Iren^eus,  and  apply  his  own  rule  to  it : — 
"  Cum  autem  ad  eam  iterum  traditionem  qu?e  est  ab  apos- 
tolis  quae  per  successiones  preshyterorum  in  ecclesiis  cus- 
toditur,  provocamus  eos,  qui  adversantur  tradition!, 
dicent  se  non  solum  presbyteris,  sed  etiam  apostolis 
existentes  sapientiores,  synceram  invenisse  veritatem." 
Lib.  iii,  cap.  2.  Here  we  have  the  precise  phrase  "  suc- 
cessiones preshyterorum,^'  which,  according  to  Dr.  C, 
himself,  means  preshyterial  succession.  Indeed,  if  "  suc- 
cessiones episcoponwi"  means  episcopal  succession,  as  he 
contends,  then  "  successiones  preshyterorum,^'  by  his  own 
rule,  must  mean  preshyterial  succession.  He  must  in- 
evitably admit  both  or  give  up  both,  or  renounce  all 
pretensions  to  candour  in  criticism. 

Let  it  be  especially  noted  here,  also,  that  in  the  above 
cited  passage  from  Irenseus,  not  only  are  the  successions 
of  jjreshytcrs  mentioned  as  the  channel  through  which 
the  apostolic  tradition  [whether  of  doctrine  or  order]  had 
been  preserved  in  the  churches,  but  no  notice  whatever 
is  taken  of  any  superior  order ;  an  omission,  which,  had 
there  been  any  such  of  the  distinct  supreme  rank 
which  Dr.  C.  alleges  for  bishops,  would,  to  say  the 
least,  have  been  extremely  unbecoming,  and  would 
argue  very  little  in  favour  of  the  accuracy  of  the  author, 

•  Page  76. 


56  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

Granting  then  that  the  phrase  "  successiones  episcopO' 
rwnf  is  also  to  be  met  with, — -what  does  this  prove  ?  It 
proves  precisely  what  we  believe  to  be  the  true  and 
candid  view  of  the  subject :  that  is  to  say,  that  even 
down  to  the  time  of  Irenseus,  and  to  the  end  of  that  cen- 
tury,  either  no  difference  of  order  was  considered  as 
existing  between  presbyters  and  bishops,  or  the  differ- 
ence was  regarded  as  so  small  and  unessential,  that 
these  titles  w^ere  frequently  interchanged  by  the  writers 
of  those  times.  In  fact,  as  Dr.  Campbell  affirms,  and. 
as  the  above  passage  plainly  shows,  Irenseus  talks  in 
much  the  same  style  of  both.  What  at  one  time  he 
ascribes  to  bishops,  at  another  he  ascribes  to  presbyters. 
He  speaks  of  each  as  entitled  to  obedience  from  the 
people,  as  succeeding  the  apcstles  in  the  ministry,  and 
as  the  succession  through  which  the  apostolic  doctrine 
and  tradition  had  been  handed  down. 

That  the  names  bishop  and  presbyter  are  often  inter- 
changed by  Irenseus,  as  well  as  other  writers  of  his 
time,  even  to  the  end  of  the  century,  is  admitted  by  the 
learned  Bishop  Pearson^  who,  however,  maintains  that 
this  happened  only  when  they  spoke  of  the  ministry  in 
general  terms,  or  mentioned  those  ministers  only  who 
had  preceded  them;  affirming  that,  in  regard  to  their 
own  contemporaries,  the  offices  of  individuals  are  never 
thus  confounded.  Dr.  Campbell  admits  the  truth  of 
this  remark,  and  considers  it  a  very  strong  confirm- 
ation of  the  doctrine  here  defended.  For  what  rea- 
sonable account  can  be  given  of  this  manner  (other- 
wise chargeable  wdth  the  most  unpardonable  inaccu- 
racy) but  by  saying  that  in  the  time  of  the  predecessors 
of  Irenseus  there  was  no  material  distinction  of  order 
between  bishops  and  presbyters ;  whereas  in  his  own 
time  the  distinction  began  to  be  marked  by  peculiar 
powers  and  prerogatives.  If  this  had  not  been  the  case, 
it  was  as  little  natural  as  excusable  to  be  less  accurate  in 
gpeaking  of  those  that  went  before,  than  of  those  in  his 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  57 

own  time.  Was  it  ever  observed  of  writers  in  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries,  to  come  no  lower,  that  they  in  this 
manner  confounded  the  ditTerent  ecclesiastical  offices  of 
the  third  ?  Is  Cyprian,  for  instance,  in  any  succeeding 
age,  styled  a  presbyter  of  Carthage,  or  Rogatian  the 
bishop?  Are  not  their  respective  titles  as  miiformly 
observed  in  after  ajj-es  as  in  their  own  ? " 

In  regard  to  the  passage  above  mentioned,  as  cited  by 
Dr.  Miller  from  Irenaeus,  book  iv,  chap,  xliv.,  on  which 
Dr.  C.  founds  his  criticism  respecting  the  presbyterial 
succession,  which  I  have  just  discussed,  he  subsequently 
adds  as  follows :  ^'  For  the  whole  amount  of  it,  as  it 
stands,  is.  To  such  presbyters  (as  with  the  discipline 
of  a  presbyter  show  forth  sound  speech,  &c.)  I  will 
give  princes  in  peace,  and  bishops  in  righteousness. 
Certainly"  [continues  Dr.  C]  "it  would  not  appear  from 
this  form  of  expression  that  the  presbyter  was  the 
bishop."  t 

Whether  this  observation  be  solid  or  merely  specious 
may  be  tested  by  an  allusion  to  the  same  place  of  the 
prophet,  by  another  moi'e  ancient  and  more  immediately 
apostolical  father, — I  mean  Clement,  whose  testimony  I 
have  before  adduced.  This  father,  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  before  mentioned,  states,  chap,  xlh,  that 
"the  apostles,  having  preached  the  gospel  in  countries 
and  towns,  constituted  the  hrst-fruits  of  their  ministry, 
wdiom  they  approved  by  the  Spirit,  bishops  and  deacons 
of  those  who  should  believe."  And  to  show  that  he 
did  not  use  these  words  vaguely,  but  as  expressive  of 
the  distinct  orders  established  by  the  apostles  in  the 
churches,  he  adds,  "  Nor  was  this  a  new  device,  inas- 
much as  bishops  and  deacons  had  been  pointed  out 
many  ages  before  ;  for  thus  says  the  Scripture,  '  I  will 
constitute  their  bishops  in  righteousness  and  their  dea- 

*  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  pp.  100,  101. 
t  Pages  76,  77. 


58  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

cons  in  faith.'  ""^  The  passage  aUuded  to  is  Isaiah 
Ix,  17.  Whether  Clement's  translation  or  application 
of  it  be  correct  is  not  now  in  question.  It  is  enough 
for  our  present  purpose  that  it  shows  clearly,  not  only 
what  his  opinion  but  what  his  knowledge  was  of  the 
orders  of  ministers  constituted  by  the  apostles  in  the 
churches  which  they  planted ;  for  to  do  this  was  his 
express  design.  Those  whom  in  this  passage  he  calls 
bishops,  in  other  parts  of  the  same  epistle  he  calls  pres- 
byters, demonstrating  thereby  that  he  uses  the  two  terms 
interchangeably,  as  expressive  of  one  and  the  same 
order.  And  most  indisputably  he  speaks  of  but  two 
orders  in  the  apostolical  churches,  constituted  by  the 
apostles  themselves  ;  at  the  same  time  that  his  express 
object  was  to  state  the  ministerial  orders  in  the  churches 
thus  constituted.  If,  then,  we  interpret  Irenseus  by 
Clement,  a  more  ancient  father,  and  the  fellow-labourer 
of  St.  Paul  himself,  we  must  say,  in  contradiction  of 
Dr.  C,  that  it  w^ould  appear  from  his  form  of  expres- 
sion,— Clement  being  interpreter, — both  that  the  bishop 
was  a  presbyter,  and  that  a  presbyter  was  the  bishop ; 
in  a  word,  that  the  ministerial  degrees  in  the  apos- 
tolical churches  consisted  of  two  orders  only,  whether 
called  bishops  and  deacons,  or  presbyters  and  deacons. 
Keeping  this  in  view,  as  placed  in  this  clear  light  by 
the  venerable  Clement,  there  remains  no  difficulty  what- 
ever, on  the  principles  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  polity, 
in  any  part  of  the  whole  third  chapter  of  the  third  book 
of  Irenseus,  or  in  any  other  quotation  from  that  father, 
even  as  given  in  the  translation  of  a  translation,  fur- 
nished by  Dr.  C. 

Dr.  C.  himself  thus  sums  up  his  own  view  of  the 
strongest  points,  extracted  from  Irenseus. 

"  1.    That  the  apostles  appointed  bishops  in  all  the 

*  So  the  passage  from  Clemept  is  rendered  in  Campbell's  Lectures, 
p.  70. 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  59 

churches,  and  left  them  as  their  successors  to  govern 
THE  church. 

2.  That  the  episcopate  or  bishopric  was  dehvered 
to  one  person,  and  one  bishop  only  at  a  time,  is  ever 
mentioned  as  governing  the  church :  thus  the  apostles 
delivered  the  episcopate  to  Linus,  to  govern  the  church  at 
Rome ;  Anacletus  succeeded  him,  and  after  him,  in  the 
third  place,  Clement  obtained  the  episcopate  ;  and  the 
names  of  twelve  successive  bishops  are  given,  who 
governed  that  church,  each  in  his  day ;  as  indicated  by 
the  expressions,  under  Clement,  under  Anicetus. 

3.  It  is  expressly  stated  that  there  were  successions 
of  bishops  in  all  the  churches,  and  that  with  the  church 
at  Rome,  in  which  the  names  of  twelve  successive 
bishops  are  given,  every  church  should  agree,  that  is, 
those  which  were  in  all  respects  faithful. 

4.  That  Polycarp  was  taught  by  the  apostles,  and 
was  hy  them  appointed  bishop  of  Smyrna.''''^ 

Again:  "Irenseus  says,"  [continues  Dr.  C]  "True 
knowledge  is  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  &c.  according  to 
the  successions  of  the  bishops,  to  whom  they  (viz.,  the  apos- 
tles) delivered  that  church  which  is  in  every  place ^''  &c.t 

And  again  :  "  In  the  twentieth  chapter  of  the  fifth 
book,  speaking  of  those  who  derive  their  authority  from 
the  apostles,  in  comparison  with  heretics,  he  says,  '  For 
they  are  all  far  behind  the  bishops  to  whom  the  apostles 
delivered  the  churches,  and  this  we  have  with  all  careful- 
ness made  apparent  in  the  third  book.'  "f 

Now  in  all  the  above,  there  is  nothing  whatever  in 
the  slightest  manner  incompatible  with  the  inherent 
identity  of  the  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  as  the 
existing  polity  and  usage  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  which  give  to  the  bishops  official  superiority 
among  their  fellow-presbyters  and  in  the  government 
of  the  churches,  especially  illustrate.     This  any  intel- 

•  Page  73.  t  Page  74. 


60  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

iigent  and  candid  person  who  will  take  the  pains  to  look 
into  them  may  readily  perceive  and  perfectly  under- 
stand. For  it  has  been  proved  from  Clement,  as  above, 
that  those  whom  the  apostles  constituted  bishops  in  the 
churches  which  they  planted,  and  whom  they  left  their 
successors,  delivering  to  them  their  own  place  of 
government,  were  of  that  order  of  ministers  next  above 
deacons,  whom  Clement  sometimes  calls  bishops  and  at 
other  times  presbyters,  and  that  no  other  intervening 
order  whatever  is  mentioned  or  alluded  to  throughout 
his  whole  epistle.  If  Irenseus  therefore  does  not  con- 
tradict Clement,  we  must  so  understand  him  also ;  and 
if  he  does  contradict  him,  then  Clement  is  the  better 
authority  of  the  two. 

But  that  Irenreus  does  in  fact  agree  with  Clement, 
there  seems  to  me  very  plain  and  positive  proof.  In  his 
fourth  book,  chap,  xhii,  he  speaks  of  "  those  presby- 
ters in  the  church  who  have  the  succession,  as  he  had 
shown,  from  the  apostles ;  who,  with  the  succession  of 
the  episcopate,  received  the  gift  of  truth,  according  to  the 
good  pleasure  of  the  Father."  This  passage  Dr.  C. 
does  not  dispute  ;  but  makes  the  following  very  just 
comment  on  it :  ''  That  Irenseus  was  here  speaking  of 
bishops  is  concluded  from  the  word  '  episcopate,'  and 
from  the  reference  to  what  he  had  said  before.""^  Very 
true.  This  is  exactly  our  own  opinion.  And  hence  it 
follows  inc on te stably,  according  to  this  authority,  that 
the  true  succession  from  the  apostles,  and  "  the  succes- 
sion of  the  episcopate"  itself,  is  with  presbyters,  one  of 
them  at  a  time,  within  his  charge,  whether  less  or 
more,  being  vested  with  official  superiority  in  the 
government  of  his  fellow-ministers  and  the  churches, 
and  yet  being  intrinsically  and  inherently  but  a  pres- 
byter among  presbyters, — though  occupying  the  first 
seat  and  the  first  official  degree,  both  in  dignity  and 

•  Page  77. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  61 

authority ;  as  the  speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
in  Great  Britain,  who,  nevertheless,  is  still  inherently 
but  a  commoner  among  commoners. 

Dr.  C  himself,  indeed,  is  compelled  to  admit  ''that 
Irengeus  sometimes  uses  the  word  presbyter  in  speak- 
ing of  those  who  govern  the  churches  ;  qui  prcesu7it 
ecdesiis.  There  are  three  other  passages  in  which  he 
does  the  same."  * 

Afterward,  it  is  true,  he  makes  an  effort  to  neutralize 
this  admission,  on  the  principle  that  the  apostles  were 
sometimes  called  elders ;  and  of  the  saying  of  Hilary^ 
"The  bishop  is  the  chief, — though  every  bishop  is  a 
presbyter,  yet  every  presbyter  is  not  a  bishop."  Very 
true.  This  again  is  exactly  our  own  opinion.  And  it 
proves,  according  to  Hilary  also,  that  though  everi/ 
presbyter  is  not  a  bishop,  yet  that  some  presbyters  are 
bishops ;  for  this  is  evidently  the  drift  of  the  saying. 
Nor  is  this  in  the  slightest  measure  contradicted  by  what 
Irenaius  says  in  other  places  "  of  the  church  [of  Rome, 
for  example]  being  governed  by  the  bishop,  by  one 
BISHOP  AT  A  TIME  ;"  or  of  thoso  whose  names  he  men- 
tions in  succession,  "  who  singly  governed  the  church, 
each  in  his  day.''''  On  the  plan  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal polity,  presbyters  do  govern  the  churches  "  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  word  prcBsunt  is  used."  And.  whe- 
ther the  term  be  applied  to  our  bishops  as  general  super- 
intendents, or  even  to  presiding  elders  within  their  dis- 
tricts, or  to  our  ordinary  presbyters  in  charge  of  circuits 
or  stations  in  which  there  may  be  "  many  thousands  of 
Christians  and  numerous  presbyters,"  still  it  may  be 
strictly  said  of  them,  "  qui  prcesunt  ecdesiis,^^ — who  pre- 
side in  or  over  the  churches. 

The  "  most  explicit  passage  on  this  subject,"  in  the 
letter  of  Irenseus  to  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  admits  of 
exactly  the  same  solution.    And  on  a  careful  review  of 

*  Page  77. 


62  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

what  has  been  said,  I  now  repeat  the  assertion  of  Dr. 
Campbell,  and  what  he  states  has  been  admitted  by 
Bishop  Pearson,  that  the  names  bishop  and  presbyter 
are  often  interchanged  by  Irenseus  ;  to  which  I  add, 
that  this  interchangeable  use  of  them,  as  essentially  the 
same  order,  alone  reconciles  him  both  to  himself  and  to 
that  still  more  venerable  ancient,  Clemens  Romamis, 
who  being  among  the  first  bishops  of  Rome  itself,  the 
very  pattern  and  model  of  all  other  churches,  according 
to  Ireneeus  and  Dr.  C,  certainly  understood  the  true 
apostolical  order. 

There  remains  one  other  "  most  explicit"  passage, 
adduced  by  Dr.  Miller  from  the  letter  of  Irenoeus  to 
Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  which  I  do.  not  perceive  that 
Dr.  C.  has  noticed.  It  is  as  follows : — "  Those  pres- 
hijters  before  Soter,  who  governed  the  church,  which  thou 
Victor,  now  governest,  [the  church  of  Rome,]  I  mean 
Anicetus,  Pius,  Hiiyginus,  Telesphorus,  and  Sixtus,  they 
did  not  observe  it :  [he  is  speaking  of  the  day  of  keep- 
ing Easter:}  and  those  presbyters  ivho  preceded  you, 
though  they  did  not  observe  it  themselves,  yet  sent  the 
eucharist  to  those  of  other  churches  who  did  observe 
it.  And  when  blessed  Polycarp,  in  the  days  of  Ani- 
cetus, came  to  Rome,  he  did  not  much  persuade  Anicetus 
to  observe  it,  as  he  (Anicetus)  declared  that  the  custom 
of  the  presbyters  who  were  his  predecessors  should  be 
retained."  * 

In  this  decisive  passage,  those  who  had.  "  singly 
governed  the  church  [of  Rome]  each  in  his  day,''''  and 
"  in  succession,"  before  the  time  of  Victor,  who  was 
contemporary  with  Irenseus,  probably  between  the 
middle  and  close  of  the  second  century,  are  uniformly 
styled  presbyters.  This  seems  to  me  a  very  strong 
confirmation  of  the  remark  of  Dr.  Campbell,  on  the 
admission  of  Bishop  Pearson  above  quoted,  viz.,  that 

*  Miller's  Letters,  pp.  152,  153. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  63 

Irenaeus,  and  other  Christian  writers  of  that  century, 
used  the  names  bishop  and  presbyter  interchangeably, 
in  reference  to  those  who  had  preceded  them,  because 
the  distinction  of  these  church  officers  as  two  orders, 
although  it  began,  perhaps,  to  be  somewhat  prevalent 
toward  the  middle  of  that  century,  yet  had  not,  even  to 
its  close,  become  by  any  means  so  settled  as  it  after- 
ward did ;  and  hence  the  great  difference  observable  in 
this  respect  between  the  style  of  the  Christian  writers 
of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  for  example,  to  come 
no  lower,  and  those  of  the  second. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  repeat,  in  answer  to  Dr.  C, 
what  has  so  often  been  said,  and  is  so  perfectly  obvious 
to  the  plainest  understanding,  that  the  attributing  of 
superiority  in  government  and  official  elevation  to  the 
individual  presbyter  constituted  bishop,  does  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  invalidate  the  remark  above  made,  or 
the  argument  founded  on  it.  This  is  essential  to  our 
own  hypothesis,  and  is  exemplified  both  in  fact  and  in 
language  in  our  own  ecclesiastical  polity,  now  before 
the  eyes  of  the  whole  community. 

Before  I  introduce  a  quotation  from  another  Christian 
father  of  the  second  century,  I  mean  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  who  flourished  about  the  close  of  the  century, 
I  must  remind  the  reader  that  confirmation,  as  well  as 
ordination,  is  deemed  by  high  churchmen  as  one  of  the 
peculiar  acts  of  a  bishop.  Dr.  Miller  had  quoted  Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus  as  saying,  in  reference  to  the  im- 
propriety of  women  wearing  false  hair, — "  On  whom 
or  what  will  the  presbyter  impose  his  hand  ?  To  whom 
or  what  will  he  give  his  blessing  ?  Not  to  the  woman 
who  is  adorned,  but  to  strange  locks  of  hair,  and  through 
them  to  another  head."  He  had  then  remarked,  that  it 
is  extremely  doubtful  whether  Clement  here  alludes  to 
confirmation  at  all,  and  that,  if  he  does,  it  is  the  first 
hint  in  all  antiquity  of  this  rite  being  practised  ;  and  it 
is   especially  unfortunate  for   the   high    church   cause 


64  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED, 

that  Clement  ascribes  its  performance  to  'presbyters. 
Dr.  C,  however,  admits  it  as  a  case  of  confirmation, 
and  says,  p.  87,  "  Here  a  presbyter  confirms,  which 
being  (Dr.  Miller  argues)  the  office  of  a  bishop,  it  is 
evident  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  one.  To  this 
[continues  Dr.  C]  it  is  rephed,  that  in  Egypt  it  was 
the  custom,  when  the  bishop  was  absent,  for  the  presby- 
ters to  confirm.  'Apud  Mgyptum  presbyteri  conjirmant, 
si  prcBsens  non  sit  episcopus'  This  very  exception  [Dr. 
Cook  still  continues]  proves  the  rule,  that  it  was 
the  bishop's  special  duty.  It  w^as  only  when  he  was 
absent  that  the  presbyters  confirmed  ;  and  moreover, 
the  statement  that  in  Egypt  this  was  the  custom,  implies 
that  it  was  not  the  common  practice  of  the  church."  In 
the  greater  part  of  this  passage  Dr.  C.  speaks  sensibly 
and  pertinently,  and  concedes,  I  think,  every  thing  that 
we  need  in  the  argument.  Let  it  be  especially  noted 
that  he  does  not  deny  that  confirmation,  as  well  as  ordi- 
nation, is  one  of  the  peculiar  acts  of  a  bishop.  And 
then  he  admits  that  when  the  bishop  was  absent  the 
presbyter  confirmed,  although  it  was  the  bishop's  special 
duty  when  present.  The  latter  I  grant  very  freely. 
But  if  in  his  absence  the  presbyter  might  perform  acts 
otherwise  peculiar  to  him,  then  this  proves  that  presby- 
ters possess  an  inherent  capacity  for  the  legitimate  per- 
formance of  such  acts, — although  in  churches  episco- 
pally  constituted,  they  are,  for  the  sake  of  order  and 
harmony,  restrained  by  the  custom  or  law  of  the  church 
from  the  performance  of  such  acts  where  there  is  a 
bishop.  And  this  is  all  we  ask.  As  to  the  remaining 
observation  of  Dr.  C.  that  "  the  statement  that  in  Egypt 
this  was  the  custom,  implies  that  it  was  not  the  common 
practice  of  the  church," — I  do  not  think  that  this  is  a 
necessary  consequence.  It  may  be,  that  Clement,  being 
himself  an  Egyptian,  meant  to  be  understood  as  speak- 
ing of  what  was  within  his  own  knowledge,  without 
intending  to  affirm  or  deny  any  thing  as  to  the  practice 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  65 

in  other  countries.  Analagous  phrases,  moreover,  on 
other  subjects,  will  show  at  once  that  Dr.  C.'s  inference 
is  not  a  necessary  one  from  the  premises.  If  it  be  said, 
for  example,  that  in  America  there  are  persons  of  all 
conditions,  and  a  great  diversity  of  soils  and  climates, — 
does  it  by  any  means  follow  that,  the  speaker  must 
necessarily  be  understood  as  affirming  that  this  is  not 
the  case  in  any  other  quarter  of  the  world?  Clearly 
not.  No  more,  I  think,  is  Dr.  C.'s  inference  a  neces- 
sary one  from  the  observation  of  Clement. 

But  be  it,  for  argument's  sake,  that  Clement  so  in- 
tended. Still  it  is  thus  proved  by  his  testimony,  that 
in  Egypt  at  least,  at  that  early  period,  this  was  deemed 
a  legitimate  practice :  and  let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that 
besides  the  many  other  churches  in  Egypt,  there  was 
that  of  Alexandria  especially,  one  of  the  most  famous 
of  all  the  ancient  churches,  the  seat  of  Christian  letters 
and  science,  and,  next  after  Rome,  the  greatest  city  in 
the  ancient  world.  That  there  may  have  been  a  diver- 
sity in  some  of  the  usages,  and  in  the  polity,  in  import- 
ant respects,  among  the  primitive  churches  even  of 
apostolical  plantation,  seems  highly  probable,  as  well 
from  this  instance,  according  to  Dr.  C.'s  own  view  of  it, 
as  from  other  considerations.  And  this,  too,  is  in  per- 
fect accordance  with  our  principles. 

There  is  one  decisive  witness,  however,  whose  testi- 
mony as  to  the  general  usage,  even  down  to  a  much 
later  period,  wholly  overthrows  Dr.  C.'s  inference  from 
the  above  passage  of  Clement.  The  witness  to  whom 
I  allude  is  Jerome,  one  of  the  most  eminent  Christian 
writers  about  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  and  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth.  I  shall  hereafter  have  occasion 
for  a  much  more  particular  reference  to  this  father.  At 
present,  I  merely  wish  to  adduce  that  well-known 
passage  in  his  famous  letter  to  Evagrius  : — "  Quid  enim 
facit,  excepta  ordinatione,  episcopus,  quod  presbyter  non 
faciat?"     "For  what  does  a  bishop  which  a  presbyter 

5 


66  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

may  not  do,  excepting  ordination  ?"  In  regard  to  ordi- 
nation, the  consideration  of  this  passage  will  be  resumed 
in  another  place.  At  present  I  confine  myself  to  the 
point  in  hand,  viz.,  confirmation.  Does  not  Jerome  ex- 
pressly affirm  in  the  above  passage, — for  the  question 
is  but  a  mode  of  strongly  affirming, — that  even  in  his 
time  a  bishop  did  nothing  which  a  presbyter  might  not 
do,  except  ordaining  ?  Nor  does  he  affirm  this  as  an 
"  exception," — as  a  thing  limited  to  any  particular  place, 
— but  as  a  well-known  general  fact,  which  would  not 
then  be  disputed.  Yet,  plain  as  this  is,  and  although 
Dr.  C.  himself,  after  Bowden,  quotes  this  very  passage 
in  the  English,  to  prove  from  Jerome  that  presbyters 
had  not  the  right  of  ordaining,  so  obstinately  is  he  bent 
on  carrying  his  point,  that  in  the  very  next  paragraph, 
p.  107,  he  undertakes  to  draw  an  inference  from  another 
passage  in  the  same  Jerome,  also  taken  from  Bowden, 
that  bishops  had  the  exclusive  right  of  conjirmation  also  ! 
In  other  words,  Jerome  first  says  explicitly  and  posi- 
tively, in  the  interrogatory  form  of  affirmation,  that  a 
presbyter  might  do  any  thing  a  bishop  did,  except 
ordination ;  and  Dr.  C.  himself  quotes  and  urges  this  ; 
yet  in  the  next  breath  draws  an  inference  from  a  vague 
and  ambiguous  passage,  that  Jerome's  testimony  is, 
that  confirmation  is  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  a 
bishop,  as  well  as  ordination,  and  that  presbyters  could 
perform  neither  !  What  may  not  be  forced  from  a  wit- 
ness if  tortured  in  this  way  ? 

Just  as  easy  would  it  be,  on  this  plan  of  managing 
testimony,  to  reconcile  Tertullian,  whom  he  next  intro- 
duces, with  what  he  alleges  from  Ignatius.  The  latter 
asserts,  according  to  Dr.  C,  that  where  there  is  not  a 
bishop,  priest,  and  deacon,  in  his  sense,  ^Hhere  isno  church.''^ 
And  Tertullian  affirms  that  where  there  was  none  of  the 
clerical  order,  even  laymen  both  celebrated  the  eucha- 
rist  and  baptized,  and  served  as  priests  to  themselves : 
for  that  three  persons,  though  Imjmen,  make  a  church, 

6* 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  67 

"  Ubi  ecclesiastici  ordinis  non  est  consessus,  et  offers, 
et  tinguis,  et  sacerdos  es  tibi  solus.  Sed  ubi  tres,  eccle- 
sia  est,  licet  laici."^ 

After  the  above  extract,  I  should  suppose  that  nothing 
more,  certainly,  can  be  necessary  to  demonstrate  that 
TertuUian  at  least  was  not  of  the  sect  of  high  church. 
But  Dr.  C.  asserts,  p.  91,  that  TertuUian  and  Irena3us 
"  agree  entirely."  How  then  does  he  reconcile  this  with 
a  former  assertion  that  Irenseus  agrees  with  what  he 
alleges  from  Ignatius  ?  For  in  regard  to  the  essential 
constituents  of  a  church,  TertuUian  and  the  alleged 
Ignatius  are  as  diametrically  at  points  as  opposites  can 
possibly  be ;  and  things  agreeing  with  one  and  the 
same  thing  ought  to  agree  with  each  other. 

There  is  another  passage  of  TertuUian  in  the  follow- 
ing words  :  "  Superest  ad  concludendam  materiolam  de 
observatione  quoque  dandi  et  accipiendi  baptismum 
commonefacere.  Dandi  quidem  habet  jus  summus  sa- 
cerdos, qui  est  episcopus.  Dehinc  presbyteri  et  diaconi ; 
non  tamen  sine  episcopi  auctoritate  propter  ecclesisB 
honorem.  Quo  salvo,  salva  pax  est.  Alioquin  etiam 
laicis  jus  est."t  In  English  thus : — "  It  remains  that 
I  remind  you  of  the  custom  of  giving  and  receiving  bap- 
tism. The  rig-ht  of  givino:  it  belong-s  to  the  hio^hest 
priest,  w  ho  is  the  bishop.  Then  to  the  presbyters  and 
deacons,  yet  not  without  the  bishop's  authority,  for  the 
sake  of  the  honour  of  the  church.  This  being  secured, 
peace  is  secured.  Otherwise  even  the  laity  have  the 
right."  Does  this  also  "  entirely  agree"  with  what  Dr. 
C.  alleges  from  Ignatius,  as  to  what  is  essential  to  the 
very  being  of  a  church  by  divine  institution  ? 

It  is  proper  to  apprize  the  reader  that  TertuUian  is 
not  a  writer  upon  whose  speculations  we  should  repose 
implicit  confidence  ;  although  as  to  matters  of  fact  and 

*  Exhortatio  ad  Castitalem.     TertuUian  was  the  first  of  the  Latin  fathers, 
about  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
t  De  Bap.  cap.  xvii. 


68  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

custom  he  may  be  regarded  as  an  ordinarily  credible 
witness.  The  ill  usage  he  received  from  the  ecclesi- 
astics of  Rome  is  supposed  to  have  contributed  to  make 
him  a  Montanist,  and  thus,  as  Dr.  Jortin  remarks,  he 
lost  the  title  of  saint.  The  same  author  adds,  that 
though  learned  for  his  time  he  was  deficient  in  judg- 
ment, and  fell  into  many  errors.  Yet,  in  citing  him,  as 
I  have  done  above,  I  have  only  to  say,  that  if  he  be 
good  authority  for  our  opponents,  then  surely  it  cannot 
be  unfair  to  turn  their  own  artillery  against  themselves. 
Tertullian^s  opinion  then  was  that  the  priesthood  itself 
is  not  of  divine  original,  since  by  the  gospel  law  all 
Christians  are  priests,  and  that,  consequently,  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  priesthood  and  laity  is  of  the 
church's  making : — "  p'opter  ecclesice  honor  em. — Alioquin 
etiam  laicis  jus  estr  So  Dr.  Campbell  understood  him, 
and  so  do  I ;  and  it  is  submitted  to  the  learned  reader 
whether  this  be  not  the  obvious  drift  of  Tertullian's 
argument,  and  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage  cited 
by  Dr.  C.  Does  Dr.  C.  affirm  that  in  this  also  Tertul- 
lian  and  Irena3us  "  entirely  agree,"  and  does  he  himself 
adopt  the  sentiment  ^"^ 

*  The  mantle  of  charity  which  that  ingenious  and  learned  critic  Dr.  Jor- 
tin casts  over  the  learned  African  father  now  under  review,  with  all  his 
defects,  may  well  be  commended  to  the  consideration  of  ecclesiastical  con- 
trovertists  and  critics,  in  moderation  of  that  odium  theologicum  which  too 
often  disfigures  and  disgraces  their  productions ;  at  the  same  time  that  the 
cause  of  truth  itself  is  wounded  through  the  intemperate  zeal  of  overheated 
friends.  After  mentioning  Tertullian's  losing,  that  is,  failing  to  receive,  the 
title  of  saint,  from  the  cause  above  stated, — a  title,  he  adds,  which  hath 
been  often  as  wretchedly  bestowed  as  other  titles  and  favours, — he  thus 
continues  : — 

"  Charity  bids  us  suppose  that  he  lost  not  what  is  infinitely  more  import- 
ant. Several  have  thought  too  hardly  concerning  him  ;  never  considering, 
that,  with  all  his  abilities,  he  was  deficient  in  jndgment,  and  had  a  partial 
disorder  in  his  understanding,  which  excuses  almost  as  much  as  downright 
phrensy.  He  was  learned  for  those  times,  acute  and  ingenious,  and  some- 
what satirical,  hasty,  credulous,  impetuous,  rigid  and  censorious,  fanatical 
and  enlhusiastical,  and  a  bad  writer  as  to  style,  not  perhaps  through  inca- 
pacity of  doing  better,  but  through  a  false  taste  and  a  perverse  aflectation. 
He  fell  into  many  errors :  but  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  in  another  world  the 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  69 

But  if  Dr.  C.  means  merely,  as  is  possible,  that  Ter- 
tuUian  and  Iren^us  entirely  agree  as  to  the  succession 
of  the  early  bishops  of  Rome,  then  let  us  examine  this 
point.  Turning  back  to  the  translation  of  a  translation 
of  the  third  chapter  of  Irenseus's  third  book  against 
heresies,  as  furnished  by  Dr.  C,  pages  71,  72,  I  find  it 
there  stated,  as  the  tradition  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
that  that  church  was  founded  "  by  the  two  most  glori- 
ous apostles  Peter  and  Paul ;"  whereas  TertuUian,  in 
his  account  of  the  tradition  of  the  same  church,  omits 
the  name  of  Paul,  and  says  that  it  "  tells  of  Clement 
ordained  by  Peter.'^ 

Again :  Irenseus  says,  "  The  blessed  apostles  [not 
Peter  alone]  delivered  the  bishopric  to  Linus.  ''Tertul- 
lian  says  the  tradition  was  that  Peter  delivered  it  to 
Clement.^ 

Again :  Irenseus  says,  that  it  was  after  both  Linus 
2ind  A?iadetiis ;  that  "  in  the  third  place  from  the  apostles 
Clement  obtained  the  bishopric"!  Whereas  TertuUian 
says  he  was  ordained  directly  by  Peter.  Is  this  what 
Dr.  C.  asserts  to  be  an  entire  agreement  ?  It  strikes  me, 
on  the  contrary,  as  widely  differing  in  every  particular. 

Now  that  I  am  on  this  point  of  the  successions  of  the 
bishops  of  Rome,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  trace  it  a  little 
farther.  And  here,  I  am  sure,  the  reader  cannot  but  be 
more  forcibly  struck  with  the  inexplicable  confusion 
and  the  irreconcilable  contradiction  which  reign  at  the 
very  head  of  the  line  ;  especially  when  he  considers 
what  stress  is  laid  on  this  thing  by  the  high-church  sect, 
and  that  after  all  it  is  a  mere  matter  of  tradition,  and  of 
a  tradition  so  ill  at  agreement  even  with  itself.     If  such 

mistakes  as  well  as  the  doubts  of  poor  mortals  are  rectified,  and  forgiven  too, 
and  that  whosoever  loves  truth  and  virtue, 

illic  postquam  se  lumine  vero 

Implevit,  stelln'sque  vagas  miratus  et  astra 
Fixa  polo,  vidit  quanta  sub  nocte  jaceret 
Nostra  dies." 

Remarks  on  Ecclesias.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  353> 
•Dr.  C,  page  91.  t  Page  72. 


70  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

be  the  true  state  of  the  case  with  regard  to  the  very 
fountain  spring,  what  possible  certainty  can  there  be  in 
its  ramified  streams  ?  And  is  this  a  foundation  for  such 
a  superstructure  as  high  church  would  rear  upon  it? 

At  the  very  outset  of  an  attempt  to  trace  this  matter 
farther,  the  fact  presents  itself,  not  only  that  Tertullian 
does  not  affree  v/ith  Irenceus,  but  that  he  does  not  ag-ree 
even  w^ith  himself  "His  list,"  says  Dr.  C.,"^  "  is  as  fol- 
lows :  Linus,  Cletus,  Anacletus,  Clemens,  Evaristus,  &c." 
Now,  but  a  little  before,  p.  91,  Dr.  C.  had  himself  ad- 
duced a  passage  from  a  different  work  of  Tertuliian's, 
in  which  it  was  stated  that  the  tradition  was  that  Cle- 
ment was  ordained  to  the  bishopric  by  Peter ;  whereas 
in  this  list  he  stands  in  the  fourth  place  in  the  succes- 
sion. Irenseus,  as  has  been  shown,  assigns  him  the 
third  place.  Epiphanius,  agahi,  differs  from  Irena^us 
by  making  Cletiis  the  second,  instead  of  Anacletus  ;  and 
from  Tertullian  by  omitting  A?iadetus  altogether ;  and 
still  farther,  he  differs  from  them  all,  by  giving  two 
Evaristuses  in  the  line — which  Dr.  C.  will  have  it,  is 
merely  mentioning  Evaristus's  name  twice.  Nay,  Dr. 
C.  himself,  in  attempting  to  harmonize  Tertuliian's 
conflicting  statements,  only  makes  a  bad  matter  still 
worse :  for  he  shows  that  he  contradicts  the  asser- 
tion and  the  cherished  tradition  of  the  church  in  Rome 
itself  There,  on  the  spot,  the  church  of  the  Romans 
asserted  that  Clement  was  ordained  the  first  bishop  by 
Peter.  "  On  the  contrary,  [says  Dr.  C.,]  he  [Tertul- 
lian] says  expressly,  '  Hac  cathedra,  Petrus  qua  sede- 
rat  ipse,  locatum  maxima  Roma  Linum,  pnmitm  con- 
sidere  jussit.'  '  In  this  chair,  in  which  Peter  himself  had 
sat,  he  commanded  Linus,  settled  in  Great  lloine,  Jirst 

to  sit.'"  t 

Here  is  not  only  confusion  itself  confounded,   but 

•Page  97. 

t  rajrp  99.  [There  are  memoranda  here  indicating  that  the  author  in- 
tended to  add  more. — Ed.] 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  71 

palpable  and  irreconcilable  contradiction,  amidst  which, 
being  wholly  at  a  loss  which  to  believe,  the  only  safe 
alternative  seems  to  be  to  reject  them  all ;  and  especially, 
as  it  is  altogether  uncertain,  in  fact,  whether  even  Peter 
himself  ever  was  in  Rome.'^ 

Dr.  C.  indeed  has  certainly  a  very  fertile  imagina- 
tion ;  and  conjectures  (in  which  he  quotes  Cave  as  sup- 
porting him)  that  the  difference  between  Irenoeus  and 
Epiphanius  consists  merely  in  rnisspeUing  names, — the 
one  writing  Cletus  and  the  other  Anacletus,  but  both 
intending  only  one  and  the  same  person.  We  prefer, 
however,  to  take  the  history  as  it  stands,  without  the 
emendation  of  either  Dr.  C.  or  Cave.  For  as  both  Ire- 
naeus  and  Epiphanius  were  men  of  "  erudition,"  it  is  to 
be  presumed  that  they  knew  how  to  spell  names  of  such 
distinction  and  notoriety,  or  to  copy  "  a  list,"  which  Dr, 
Cooke  takes  upon  himself  to  affirm  "  was  kept  in  each 

*  The  whole  of  the  traditionary  statements  (for  they  are  nothing  better) 
imputed  to  Ireiiaeus  and  other  ancient  fathers,  respecting  the  foundation  of 
that  "  greatest,  most  ancient,  and  universally  known  church"  of  Rome,  "  by 
the  two  most  glorious  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,"  have  very  much  the  air  of 
the  fabrications  of  a  later  period.  For  it  is  certain,  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  church  of  Rome  was  not  the  "  most  ancient,"  if  "  the  greatest,"  and  in 
the  second  place,  that  Paul  was  not  its  founder,  as  is  manifest  from  his  own 
epistle  to  that  church.  The  following  observations,  from  Dr.  Adam  Clarke's 
preface  to  his  notes  on  that  epistle,  place  this  matter  in  a  clear  light : — 

"  When,  or  by  whom  the  gospel  was  first  preached  at  Rome  cannot  be  as- 
certained. Those  who  assert  that  St.  Peter  was  its  founder,  can  produce 
no  solid  reason  for  the  suj'port  of  their  opinion.  Had  this  apostle  first 
preached  the  gospel  in  that  city,  it  is  not  likely  that  such  an  event  would 
have  been  unnoticed  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  where  the  labours  of  St. 
Peter  are  particularly  detailed  with  those  of  St.  Paul,  which  indeed  form  the 
chief  subject  of  this  book.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  tiie  author  of  this  epistle 
should  have  made  no  reference  to  this  circumstance,  had  it  been  true.  Those 
who  say  that  this  church  was  founded  by  these  two  apostles  conjointly  have 
still  less  reason  on  their  side;  for  it  is  evident  from  chap,  i,  8,  &c.,  that 
St.  Paul  had  never  been  at  Rome,  previously  to  his  writing  this  epistle.  It 
is  most  likely  that  no  apostle  was  employed  in  this  important  work  ;  and 
that  the  gospel  was  first  preached  there  by  some  of  those  persons  who  were 
converted  at  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  for  we  find  from  Acts 
ii,  10,  that  there  were  then  at  Jerusalem  strangers  of  Rome,  Jews,  and  pro- 
selytes;  and  these,  on  their  return,  would  naturally  declare  the  wonders 
they  had  witnessed  ;  and  proclaim  that  truth  by  which  they  themselves  ha(J 
received  salvation," 


72  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

church  ;"  and  that  in  a  matter  of  such  importance  th^y 
used  dihgence  and  care.  And  if  they  did  not,  then  their 
histories  are  entitled  to  the  less  credit. 

In  coming  down  to  the  time  of  Cyprian,  a  favourite  au- 
thority with  high-church  writers,  I  have  no  hesitation  to 
grant,  not  only  that  by  that  time  the  polity  of  the  Christian 
churches  generally  was  "  episcopal,"  in  the  proper  sense 
of  this  term,  as  indeed  I  believe  it  always  was,  but  that 
Cyprian  and  other  Christian  writers  of  that  age  used  a 
style  clearly  expressive  of  three  official  distinctions  in 
the  ministry,  whether  denominated  orders,  degrees,  or 
by  whatever  other  name  they  may  be  called.  I  am  free 
to  admit,  also,  that  down  to  that  time,  about  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  the  powers  and  prerogatives  of  the 
bishops  had  been  steadily  advancing,  and  those  of  the 
presbyters  gradually  depressed,  so  that  even  at  that 
period,  the  style  and  state  of  bishops,  as  compared  with 
other  presbyters,  presented  an  aspect  very  different  from 
that  which  had  been  exhibited  either  in  the  apostolical 
age,  or  in  that  which  immediately  succeeded  the  death 
of  the  last  of  the  inspired  college.  At  that  period, 
moreover,  and  increasingly  so  thereafter,  there  are  plain 
indications  that  presbyters  were  not  only  restricted  from 
the  actual  performance  of  what  was  deemed  the  pecu- 
liarly sacred  function  of  ordination,  at  least  without  the 
bishop's  permission,  (and  in  churches  episcopally  consti- 
tuted very  properly  so,)  but  that  it  became  very  unusual 
for  the  bishop  to  grant  this  permission ;  and,  as  Dr. 
Campbell  has  well  remarked,  the  transition  from  seldom 
to  never  is  very  natural ;  and  just  as  natural,  in  our 
w^ays  of  judging,  from  w^hat  is  never  done  to  what  can- 
not lawfully  be  done. 

The  true  question,  however,  and  the  only  true  ques- 
tion, at  this  stage  of  the  controversy,  still  remains,  and 
is  wholly  unaffected  by  any  of  the  above  admissions. 
It  is  not  whether  presbyters  actually  did  ordain  at  the 
period  in  question,  either  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  a 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  73 

bishop  as  his  colleague, — but  whether  it  was  even  then 
generally  judged  and  admitted  that  there  either  is  any- 
thing essential  in  the  character  of  the  ministry  itself,  or 
of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation  in  its  divine  insti- 
tution, which  makes  it  unlawful,  invalid,  and  null  for 
presbyters  to  perform  this  function  in  churches  which 
have  no  bishops  in  fact,  or  with  the  permission  or  by  the 
direction  of  the  bishop  in  those  which  have,  and  where 
there  are  no  laws,  usages,  or  order  of  such  churches  to 
the  contrary.  On  this  question  there  is  not  wanting  tes- 
timony in  support  of  our  views,  even  in  Cyprian,  as 
much  as  he  was  disposed  to  exalt  the  episcopal  prero- 
gative, and  to  bring  in  an  unlimited  multitude  of  popes, 
while  he  manfully  resisted  the  arrogant  assumptions  of 
one,  as  above  shown. 

Dr.  Miller,  in  reference  to  the  sentiments  of  Cyprian, 
had  said  that  he  not  only  repeatedly  calls  the  presbyters 
of  Carthage  his  colleagues,  but  that  in  writing  to  them 
when  he  was  himself  in  exile,  he  requests  them,  during 
his  absence,  to  perform  Ids  duties  as  well  as  their  own  ; 
which  seems  plainly  to  imply  that  he  considered  them 
inherently  capable  in  his  absence,  and  by  his  permission 
or  request,  to  perform  wiiatever  was  deemed  peculiar  to 
the  office  of  the  bishop  when  present,  as  well  as  their 
own  ordinary  functions.  Dr.  C.  answers  that  Cyprian's 
words  are  not  quoted  ;  and  that,  supplying  the  defect 
from  Hooker,  what  Cyprian  exhorted  and  commanded 
his  presbyters  to  do  was,  "  to  supply  his  room  in  doing 
those  things  which  the  exercise  of  religion  requires ^"^ 
I  ask  then,  whether  the  following,  from  Cyprian's  fifth 
epistle,  be  not  the  place  to  which  Dr.  Miller  alludes  : — 
"  Quoniam  mihi  interesse  nunc  non  permittit  loci  con- 
ditio, peto  vos  pro  fide  et  religione  vestra,  fungamini  illic 
et  vestris partibus  et  meis,  ut  nihil  vel  ad  disciplinam  vel 
ad  diligentiam  desit." 

•  Page  94. 


74  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

Will  not  Dr.  C.  undertake  to  affirm  that,  to  supply  his 
(Cyprian's)  room  "  in  doing  those  things  which  the  exer- 
cise of  religion  requires^''  is  "an  exact  translation"  of 
^'fungamini  illic  et  vestris  partihus  et  meis  V  On  the 
contrary,  I  appeal  to  every  reader  in  the  least  acquainted 
with  the  Latin  tongue,  M^hether  it  be  not  an  explicit  en- 
treaty to  them  to  perform,  in  the  exigence  of  his  neces- 
sary absence,  the  functions  peculiar  to  his  office  when 
present,  as  well  as  those  ordinarily  their  own  ?  And  had 
he  intended  any  limitation,  and  especially  if  he  meant 
to  except  the  chief  function  of  all — ordination,  would  he 
not  have  said  so,  or  have  given  some  intimation  of  it  ? 
Instead  of  this,  he  gives  them  but  one  simple  general 
rule  for  their  guidance,  as  long  as  it  might  be  necessary 
for  him  to  continue  absent,  and  that  was  to  perform  the 
duties  of  his  office  as  well  as  their  own.  And  I  submit 
it,  moreover,  to  the  unmystified  understanding  of  every 
reader,  whether,  if  a  vacancy  had  actually  occurred, 
either  in  the  deaconship  or  the  eldership  of  that  church 
during  Cyprian's  absence,  (which  would  have  made  it 
the  more  especially  desirable  that  it  should  be  filled,) 
the  above  request  would  not  have  been  a  sufficient  war- 
rant, so  far  as  Cyprian's  sanction  was  concerned,  to 
authorize  the  presbytery  to  proceed  to  supply  such 
vacancy  by  an  actual  ordination. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  greatly  strengthened  by 
the  following  passage,  in  a  letter  to  Cyprian  from  Fir- 
milian  bishop  of  Csesarea,  one  of  his  contemporaries  : — 
"  Quando  omnis  potestas  et  gratia  in  ecclesia  constituta 
sit,  ubi  prcesident  majores  natu,  qui  et  baptizandi  et 
manum  imponendi,  et  ordinandi  possident  potestatem."* 
That  is,  "  Since  all  power  and  grace  is  established  in 
the  church,  where  elders  preside,  who  have  the  power 
both  of  baptizing  and  imposing  hands,  and  ordaining^ 
On  the  original  Latin  of  this  passage,  as  above,  the  fol- 

•Cyprian's  Epis.,  p.  75. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  75 

lowing  remarks  of  Dr.  Campbell  are  so  clear  and  satis- 
factory that  I  add  them  entire. 

"  That  by  ?najores  natu,  in  Latin,  is  meant  the  same 
with  Ttpea^vrepoi  Ui  Grcck,  of  whicli  it  is  indeed  a  literal 
version,  can  scarcely  be  thought  questionable.  Besides, 
the  phrase  so  exactly  coincides  with  that  of  Tertul- 
lian,  who  says,  '  Probati  prsesident  seniores,' — approved 
elders  preside, — as  to  make  the  application,  if  possible, 
still  clearer.  Indeed,  if  we  were  not  to  consider  the 
Latin,  majores  natu,  as  meant  to  correspond  to  the 
Greek  TrpeuiSvTepot,  the  only  translation  we  could  give  to  the 
phrase  used  by  Firmilian  would  be,  '  where  old  men 
preside  ;'  an  affirmation  which  could  hardly  ever  have 
been  in  such  general  terms  given  with  truth.  For 
when  the  canonical  age  of  bishops  came  to  be  esta- 
blished, it  was  no  more  than  thirty  ;  and  it  is  a  certain 
fact  that,  both  before  and  after  that  canon,  several  were 
ordained  younger.  I  am  far  from  thinking  that  under 
this  term,  '  majores  natu,'  those  who  were  then  pecu- 
Harly  called  bishops  are  not  included,  or  even  prin- 
cipally intended :  but  what  I  maintain  is,  that,  now 
that  the  distinction  had  obtained,  the  use  of  so  com- 
prehensive a  term  seems  sufficiently  to  show  that  it 
was  not  his  intention  to  affirm  it  of  the  latter  order, 
exclusively  of  the  former,  else  he  would  never  have 
employed  a  word  which,  when  used  strictly,  was  ap- 
propriated to  the  former  order  and  not  to  the  latter. — 
Thus  the  name  priests,  in  English,  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, is  often  adopted  to  denote  the  clergy  in  general, 
both  bishops  and  priests.  But  no  intelligent  person 
that  understands  the  lang'uao'e,  and  does  not  intend  to 
deceive,  would  express  himself  in  this  manner — '  Li  the 
Church  of  England  the  priests  have  the  power  of  bap- 
tizing, confirming,  and  ordaining.'  Nor  could  he  excuse 
himself  by  pretending  that  in  regard  to  the  two  last  ar- 
ticles, he  meant  by  the  word  priests  the  bishops,  exclu- 
sively of  those  more  commonly,  and  for  distinction's 


76  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

sake,  called  priests.  Yet  the  two  cases  are  exactly 
parallel;  for  in  Firmilian's  time  the  distinction  of  the 
three  orders  was,  though  not  so  considerable,  as  w^ell 
known  by  the  Christians  in  Cappadocia  and  in  Africa, 
as  they  are  at  this  day  in  England."  ^ 

These  just  and  forcible  observations  are  also  a  full 
answer  to  a  remark  which  Dr.  C.  makes,  p.  96,  on  Dr. 
Miller's  reference  to  the  above  passage,  and  which  is  so 
frequently  repeated  throughout  his  book,  viz.,  "  that 
some  writers  occasionally  used  the  general  term  pres- 
byter, or  priest,  in  speaking  of  the  bishop."  That  they 
sometimes  used  the  general  term  presbyters,  or  priests, 
inclusively  of  the  bishop  or  bishops,  is  granted.  But 
after  that  the  distinction  of  three  orders  became  general, 
as  was  the  case  in  Firmilian's  time,  no  sensible  writer 
would  choose  this  comprehensive  term  in  describing  the 
functions  peculiar  to  bishops,  as  contradistinguished 
from,  and  exclusively  of,  presbyters,  to  whom,  strictly, 
this  designation  is  appropriate.  On  this  point  Dr.  Camp- 
bell's illustration  seems  to  me  perfectly  conclusive. 
"  The  name  priests,  in  English,  in  the  plural  number,  is 
often  adopted  to  denote  the  clergy  in  general,  both 
bishops  and  priests.  But  no  intelligent  person,  that 
understands  the  language,  and  does  not  intend  to  de- 
ceive, w^ould  express  himself  in  this  manner — '  In  the 
Church  of  England  the  priests  have  the  power  of  bap- 
tizing-, confirming-  and  ordaining-.'  Nor  could  he  excuse 
himself  by  pretending  that  in  regard  to  the  last  two  ar- 
ticles, he  meant  by  the  word  priests  the  bishops,  exclu- 
sively of  those  more  commonly,  and  for  distinction's 
sake,  called  j)riests."  In  regard  to  the  parallel  passage 
of  Tertullian,  quoted  by  Dr.  Campbell  as  illustrative 
of  the  majores  natu  of  Firmilian,  Dr.  C.  thinks  that  the 
phrase,  "  Praesident  probati  quique  seniores,"  means 
"  that  certain  approved  old  men  presided ;"  and  then 

'Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  pp.  114,  115. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  77 

adds,  "  and  this  term  is  so  general  that  it  certainly  does 
not  indicate  presbyters  particularly.""^  If  by  "  particu- 
larly," Dr.  C.  means  exclusivehj,  it  is  granted.  But  does 
this  general  term  exclude  presbyters  1  Does  it  indicate 
bishops  in  Dr.  C.'s  sense  of  bishops,  and  bishops  only  ? 
This  is  the  true  question,  and  common  sense,  with 
common  honesty,  may  answer  it. 

In  addition  to  what  Dr.  Campbell  says  as  to  the  ren- 
dering of  the  phrase  "  old  men,"  that  it  imputes  to  the 
writer  an  affirmation  which  could  hardly  ever,  in  such 
general  terms,  have  been  made  with  truth, — I  may  cite 
a  passage  from  one  of  the  letters  of  Ignatius,  as  fur- 
nished by  Dr.  C.  himself:  ''Wherefore  it  will  become 
you  also  not  to  use  your  bishop  too  familiarly,  upon  the 
account  of  his  youth ;  not  considering  his  age,  which 
indeed  to  appearance  is  young.''''  Epist.  to  the  Magnesians. 
So  also  Paul  to  Timothy,  "Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth." 

As  to  the  observation  which  Dr.  C.  somewhere  makes, 
that  the  period  anciently  denominated  "  youth"  extended 
to  a  considerable  age,  it  is  wholly  irrelevant ;  because, 
in  the  first  place,  the  writers  of  those  times  would  not 
call  old  tnen  those  whom  their  lang-uao'e  and  custom 
classed  among  the  young ;  and  in  the  second,  the  very 
charges  given  both  by  Ignatius  and  St.  Paul  show  that 
Timothy  and  the  Magnesian  bishop  were  young  in 
fact,  and  therefore  liable  to  be  treated  too  familiarly,  if 
their  elevated  character  and  conduct  did  not  protect  them 
against  it. 

But  of  all  the  extraordinary  things  in  Dr.  C.'s  book, 
his  representations  of  the  views  of  Jerome  surprise  me 
most.  Whether  he  has  exhibited  them  justly  and  truly, 
the  reader  shall  have  an  opportunity  to  judge. 

I  had  before  occasion  to  remark,  incidentally,  that 
Jerome  was  a  Christian  writer  of  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth  century.     "  A  man,"  says  Dr.  Campbell,  "  who 

•  Page  88. 


78  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

had  more  erudition  than  any  other  person  then  in  the 
church,  the  greatest  hnguist,  the  greatest  critic,  the 
greatest  antiquary  of  them  all."  This  will  probably  not 
be  disputed ;  and  consequently  the  reader  may  well 
suppose  that  he  was  capable  of  expressing  himself  in- 
telligibly on  a  subject  which  he  professedly  took  in 
hand  to  treat.  Now  let  it  be  carefully  observed,  that 
the  question  here,  for  the  present,  is  not  whether  Je- 
rome's views  were  right  or  wrong,  but  what  were  they ; 
and  has  Dr.  C.  correctly  and  fairly  represented  them  1 
In  the  days  of  Jerome,  then,  it  seems  that  some  deacon 
had  taken  upon  him  to  assert  that  the  order  of  deacons 
was  superior  to  that  of  presbyters.  To  come  at  his 
error,  and  at  the  same  time  to  chastise  his  arrogance, 
Jerome,  in  his  epistle  to  Evagrius,  says  : — ''  I  hear  that 
a  certain  person  has  broken  out  into  such  folly,  that  he 
prefers  deacons  before preshjters,  that  is,  before  bishops; 
for  when  the  apostle  clearly  teaches  that  presbyters  and 
bishops  were  the  same,  who  can  endure  it  that  a  minister 
of  tables  and  of  widows  should  proudly  exalt  himself 
above  those  at  whose  prayers  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  is  made  ?  Do  you  seek  for  authority  ?  Hear  that 
testimony, — Paul  and  Timothy,  servants  of  Jesus  Christ, 
to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi,  with 
the  bishops  and  deacons.  Would  you  have  another  ex- 
ample ?  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  Paul  speaks  thus 
to  the  priests  of  one  church :  Take  heed  to  yourselves, 
and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  bishops,  that  you  govern  the  church  which  he  hath  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood.  And  lest  any  one  should  con- 
tend about  there  being  a  plurality  of  bishops  in  one 
church,  hear  also  another  testimony,  by  which  it  may 
most  manifestly  be  proved  that  a  bishop  and  presbyter 
are  the  same.  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that 
thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  yvanting,  and 
ordain  presbyters  in  every  city,  as  I  have  appointed  thee. 
If  any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  &c.     For  a 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  79 

bishop  must  he  blameless  as  steward  of  God.  And  to 
Timothy,  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was 
given  thee  by  prophecy,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery.  And  Peter,  also,  in  his  first  epistle  saith, 
The  presbyters  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am 
also  a  presbyter,  and  a  ?vit?iess  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
and  also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed ; 
to  rule  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  to  inspect  it,  not  of  con- 
straint, but  willingly,  according  to  God  ;  which  is  more 
significantly  expressed  in  the  Greek  EmaKOTrowTec,  that  is, 
superintending  it,  whence  the  7iame  of  bishop  is  drawn. 
Do  the  testimonies  of  such  men  seem  small  to  thee  ? 
Let  the  evangelical  trumpet  sound,  the  so?i  of  thunder, 
whom  Jesus  loved  much,  who  drank  the  streams  of 
doctrine  from  our  Saviour's  breast.  The  presbyter  to 
th£  elect  lady  and  her  children,  whom  I  love  in  the  truth. 
And  in  another  epistle.  The  presbyter  to  the  beloved  Gaius, 
whom  I  love  in  the  truth.  But  that  one  was  afterward 
chosen,  who  should  be  set  above  the  rest,  was  done  as 
a  remedy  against  schism ;  lest  every  one  drawing  the 
church  of  Christ  to  himself,  should  break  it  in  pieces. 
For  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark  the  evangelist,  to  Hera- 
clas  and  Dionysius,  the  bishops  thereof,  the  presbyters 
always  named  one,  chosen  from  among  them,  and 
placed  in  a  higher  degree,  bishop.  As  if  an  army  should 
make  an  emperor ;  or  the  deacons  should  choose  one  of 
themselves,  whom  they  knew  to  be  most  diligent,  and 
call  him  archdeacon'''     Miller's  Letters,  pp.  184,  185. 

Again  :  in  his  commentary  on  St.  Paul's  epistle  to 
Titus,  the  same  very  eminent  father  says  : — 

"  Let  us  diligently  attend  to  the  words  of  the  apostle, 
saying,  That  thou  may  est  ordain  elders  ifi  every  city,  as  I 
have  appointed  thee.  Who,  discoursing  in  what  follows 
what  sort  of  presbyter  is  to  be  ordained,  saith,  If  any  one 
be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  &c.,  afterward  adds, 
For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God, 
&c.    A  presbyter,  therefore,  is  the  same  as  a  bishop  ;  and 


80  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED- 

before  there  were,  by  the  devil's  instmct,  parties  in  reli- 
gion, and  it  was  said  among  the  people,  /  am  of  Paul, 
and  I  of  Apollo s,  and  I  of  Cej?has,  the  churches  were 
governed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters.  But 
afterward,  when  every  one  thought  that  those  whom  he 
baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's,  it  was  determined 
through  the  whole  world  that  one  of  the  presbyters 
should  be  set  above  the  rest,  to  whom  all  care  of  the 
church  should  belonsr,  that  the  seeds  of  schism  mig-ht 
be  taken  away.  If  any  suppose  that  it  is  merely  our 
opinion,  and  not  that  of  the  Scriptures,  that  bishop  and 
presbyter  are  the  same,  and  that  one  is  the  name  of  age, 
the  other  of  offce,  let  him  read  the  words  of  the  apostle 
to  the  Philippians,  saying,  Paul  and  Timothy,  the  ser- 
vants of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  that 
are  at  Philippi ;  with  the  hishops  and  deacons.  Philippi 
is  a  city  of  Macedonia,  and  certainly  in  one  city  there 
could  not  be  more  than  one  bishop,  as  they  are  now 
styled.  But  at  that  time  they  called  the  same  men 
hishops  w^hom  they  called  presbyters,  therefore  he  speaks 
indifferently  of  bishops  as  of  presbyters.  This  may 
seem  even  yet  doubtful  to  some,  till  it  be  proved  by  an- 
other testimony.  It  is  written  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, that  when  the  apostle  came  to  Miletus,  he  sent  to 
Ephesus,  and  called  the  preshyters  of  that  church,  to  whom, 
among  other  thmgs,  he  said.  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and 
to  all  the  flock  over  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
hishops,  to  feed  the  church  of  God  ivhicli  he  hath  purchased 
with  his  own  blood.  Here  observe  diligently,  that  calling 
together  the  presbyters  of  one  city,  Ephesus,  he  after- 
ward styles  the  same  persons  bishops.  If  any  will 
receive  that  epistle  which  is  wTitten  in  the  name  of  Paid 
to  the  Hebrews,  there  also  the  care  of  the  church  is 
divided  among  many,  since  he  writes  to  the  people, 
Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  suhmit  your- 
selves, for  they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  those  that  must 
give  an  account,  that  they  may  do  it  with,  joy  and  not  with 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  81 

grief,  for  that  is  unprqfitahle  for  you.  And  Peter  (so 
called  from  the  firmness  of  bis  faith)  in  his  epistle  saith, 
The  iweshyters  ivhich  are  among  you  I  exhort,  7vho  am 
also  a  'presbyter,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
and  also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed, 
Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  not  by  con- 
straint, bat  willingly.  These  things  I  have  written  to 
show  that  among  the  ancients  presbyters  and  bishops 
were  the  same.  But,  by  little  and  little,  that  all  the 
seeds  of  dissension  might  be  plucked  up,  the  whole 
care  was  devolved  on  one.  As,  therefore,  the  presbyters 
know  that  by  the  custom  of  the  church  they  are  subject 
to  him  who  is  their  president,  so  let  bishops  know  that 
they  are  above  presbyters  more  by  the  custom  of  the 
church  than  by  the  true  dispe7isatio7i  of  Christ ;  and  that 
they  ought  to  rule  the  church  in  common,  imitating 
Moses,  who,  when  he  might  alone  rule  the  people  of 
Israel,  chose  seventy  with  whom  he  might  judge  the 
people."     Miller's  Letters,  pp.  180-183. 

After  carefully  perusing  the  above  passages,  without 
reference  to  any  purposes  of  party  or  system,  can  any 
intelligent  and  candid  reader  doubt  that  Jerome  intended 
(in  vindication  of  the  true  primitive  order  of  presbyters 
as  divinely  instituted,  and  in  correction  of  the  assuming 
deacon  whose  presumption  was  the  occasion  of  the  first 
passage)  to  assert, 

1.  That  in  the  apostolical  age,  and  by  the  Divine  in- 
stitution, bishops  and  presbyters  were  one  and  the  same 
order  :  and  that  what  he  had  written  then  was  expressly 
to  show  that  "  among  the  ancients"  this  was  the  case. 

2.  That  it  was  as  a  remedy  against  schisms,  after 
that  age,  viz. :  when  every  one  thought  that  those  whom 
he  baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's,  that  it  was 
determined  through  the  whole  world,  that  one  of  the 
presbyters  should  be  set  above  the  rest,  to  w^hom  sub- 
sequently, and  fully  so  by  Jerome's  time,  the  title  bishop 
came  to  be  distinctively  appropriated. 

6 


82  EPISCOPAL    CONTHOVERSY   REVIEWED. 

3.  That  the  above  change  in  the  government  of  the 
churches  took  place,  not  all  at  once,  but  gradually,  {pau- 
latim,)  hj  little  and  little.  How  long  it  was  before  it 
became  general  or  universal  not  being  stated. 

4.  That  the  true  footing  of  the  acquired  superiority 
of  bishops  above  presbyters  was,  that  hy  the  custom  of 
the  church,  rather  than  by  the  true  dispensation  of  Christy 
they  had,  hy  little  and  little,  been  elevated  to  the  official 
superiority  of  preside7its,  or  presiding  presbyters,  to 
whom  the  rest,  with  their  free  consent,  as  seems  plainly 
implied,  and  for  the  sake  of  order  and  harmony,  had  be- 
come subjected.  In  other  words,  that  this  state  of  things 
gradually  took  the  place  of  the  original  primitive  order, 
and  was  of  the  church's  making,  though  for  expedient 
and  salutary  purposes,  and  not  of  Divine  institution,  or 
by  divine  right. 

5.  That  the  presidency  or  official  superiority  of 
bishops,  which  thus  gradually  took  place  in  the  church, 
was  no  other  than  such  as  the  body  of  presbyters  them- 
selves could  and  did  confer.  In  proof  of  which,  and  in 
evidence  that  this  actual  practice  had  not  wholly  ceased 
until  a  comparatively  late  period,  he  adduces  the  noted 
instance  of  the  famous  church  at  Alexandria,  as  above 
recited. 

This  summary  of  Jerome's  sentiments,  which  I  beg 
the  reader  to  compare  with  the  passages  above  quoted, 
makes  him  consistent  with  himself,  and  with  the  express 
object  of  his  letter  to  Evagrius,  which  was  to  show  that 
presbyters,  so  far  from  being  inferior  to  deacons,  as 
some  vain  deacon  had  weakly  or  proudly  asserted,  were 
primarily  of  the  same  order  with  bishops.  A  contrary 
interpretation,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  his  argument 
incoherent,  inconsistent,  and  subversive  of  his  avowed 
design. 

Dr.  Miller  remarks  that  it  might  be  a  matter  of  sur- 
prise to  learn  that  some  episcopal  writers  had  ventured 
to  say  that  Jerome  merely  conjectured  that  in  the  apos- 

6^ 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  83 

tie's  days  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same.  What 
surprise  may  not  justly  be  excited,  to  learn  that  Dr.  C. 
has  the  controversial  hardihood  roundly  to  affirm,  and 
to  endeavour  to  make  his  readers  believe,  "  that  this 
passage  from  Jerome,  taken  as  it  is  offered,  [that  is,  as  I 
understand,  taken  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Miller,  and  above 
from  him,]  plainlij  declares  that  episcopacy  [of  course  in 
the  high-church  sense  asserted  by  Dr.  C]  was  esta- 
bhslied  through  the  whole  world  by  a  decree  ....  in 
the  time  of  Paul  and  the  other  apostles,  and  conse- 
quently was  done  hy  them,  and  is  therefore  a  Divine  in- 
stitution." In  other  words,  as  he  had  said  a  little  be- 
fore, that  it  was  done  "  by  all  the  apostles ;  originated 
with  these  inspired  servants  of  God ;  and  is  therefore 
a  Divine  institution,  and  absolutely  binding  on  all  the 
church."  All  which,  whether  directly,  or  by  just  and  fair 
inference.  Dr.  C.  asserts  he  has  shown  "  that  this  pas- 
sage from  Jerome,  taken  as  it  is  offered,  plainly  de- 
clares.''^* 

That  I  do  not  misunderstand  Dr.  C.  seems  entirely 
clear  from  the  various  forms  and  places  in  which,  in 
substance,  he  repeats  this  assertion,  and  especially  from 
a  sentence  toward  the  conclusion  of  his  discussion  of 
this  subject,  in  which  he  says, — "It  is  evide7it  from  the 
preceding  examination  of  the  passages  from  Jerome,  quoted 
hy  Dr.  Miller,  that  he  [Jerome^  fully  supports  the  doctrine 
that  episcopacy  [of  course  in  Dr.  C.'s  sense]  7vas  esta- 
blished hy  tlie  apostlesr\  On  which  ground,  as  the  very 
footing  on  which  Jerome  "plainly"  places  the  matter, 
Dr.  C.  had  asserted  before  that  it  is  "  therefore  a  Divine 
institution,  and  absolutely  binding  on  all  the  church  !" 

As  the  reader  may  possibly  be  curious  to  know  by 
what  occult  power  of  the  magical  art  Dr.  C,  through 
some  twenty  large  pages,  elaborates  this  extraordinary 
conclusion,  and  puts  this  perfect  fool's-cap  on  Jerome, 

*  Pages  102,  103.  t  Page  117. 


84  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

I  will  endeavour,  if  I  can,  to  make  an  abstract  of  it, — 
interspersing,  by  the  way,  some  occasional  observations' 
on  the  process. 

The  grand  fulcrum  on  which  the  whole  lever  of  his 
argument  rests,  is  the  observation  which  Jerome  makes 
in  hi&  commentary  on  Titus,  in  which,  after  saying,  "  a 
presbyter,  therefore,  is  the  same  as  a  bishop,"  he  adds, 
"  and  before  there  were,  by  the  devil's  instinct,  parties 
in  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the  people  /  am  of 
Paul,  I  ofApoUos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  the  churches  were 
governed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters.  But 
afterward,  when  every  one  thought  that  those  whom  he 
baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's,  it  was  deter- 
mined through  the  whole  world,  that  one  of  the  presby- 
ters should  be  set  above  the  rest,  to  whom  all  care  of 
the  church  should  belong,  that  the  seeds  of  schism 
might  be  taken  away." 

Now,  says  Dr.  C,  "  the  date  of  the  circumstance 
mentioned  by  Jerome  as  having  produced  the  change 
he  speaks  of,  is  easily  determined.  This  circumstance 
is  mentioned  in  Paul's  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians^ 
(i,  12.) — "  He  then  goes  into  a  detail  to  show  the  date 
of  that  epistle,  and  concludes  thus :  "  This  was  there- 
fore done  by  the  apostles  themselves ;  and  because 
done  by  inspired  men,  it  is  a  divine  institution."*  The 
same  thing,  grounded  on  the  same  assumption,  he  reite- 
rates over  and  over,  throughout  the  twenty  pages. 

There  are  three  [four]  considerations,  however,  which 
totally  overthrow  this  main  pillar  of  Dr.  C.'s  whole 
arg-ument. 

1.  The  first  is,  as  suggested  by  Dr.  Miller,  that  some 
of  the  portions  of  the  New  Testament  from  which  Je- 
rome adduces  proof  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were 
originally  the  same,  were  certainly  written  after  the  first 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians.     From  which  it  is  manifest 

*Page  101. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  85 

that  Jerome  could  not,  without  palpably  contradicting 
himself,  have  intended  to  say  that  it  was  just  at  that 
time,  when  that  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was 
written,  that  the  change  took  place  of  which  he  speaks, 
and  that  it  was  then  done  by  the  decree  of  "  all  the 
apostles"  themselves,  for  all  the  churches  "  through  the 
whole  world." 

2.  Dr.  C.'s  arguments  involve  anachronisms  which 
convict  them  of  palpable  error.  In  a  former  part  of  his 
work  he  undertook  "  to  show  from  the  Scripture,"  that 
it  was  in  the  state  of  anxiety  for  the  welfare  of  the 
Ephesian  church,  in  which  Paul  left  Ephesus  to  go  into 
Macedonia,  as  related  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Acts, 
that  he  committed  to  Timothy  the  episcopal  charge  of 
that  church ;  that  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  containing 
"  full  evidence  of  ample  episcopal  authority," — that  is, 
of  the  ample  episcopal  authority  committed  to  Timothy 
by  Paul, — "  was  written  in  Macedonia,  after  Paul  went 
there  from  Greece,  and  before  he  rejoined  Timothy  and 
the  rest  of  his  company  at  Troas."* 

Now  if  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble  to  look  at  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  he  will 
see  indisputable  proof  that  all  this  was  before  Paul  came 
to  Miletus ;  and  thence  sent  for  the  elders  of  Ephesus 
to  meet  him  there.  If  he  will  look  at  page  101  of  Dr. 
C.'s  book,  he  will  also  find  that  Paul's  placing  Timothy 
over  the  Ephesian  church  at  that  period,  is  alleged  by 
Dr.  C.  as  one  of  the  instances  of  the  change  made  in 
pursuance  of  the  apostolical  decree,  on  the  occasion 
mentioned  in  first  Corinthians.  And  yet  it  is  on  Paul's 
address  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus  at  Miletus,  subsequently 
to  Timothy's  being  made  bishop  of  Ephesus,  according 
to  Dr.  C,  that  Jerome  founds  one  of  his  principal  argu- 
ments for  the  primitive  identity  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters !  Is  it  possible,  then,  that  Jerome's  views  and 
Dr.  C.^s  could  be  the  same  ? 

•  Pages  32-36. 


86  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

3.  Dr.  C.  alleges  also  that  Paul  "  set  Titus  over  the 
Cretans"  "  in  like  manner,  and  with  similar  [episcopal] 
powers  :"  that  is,  as  he  had  set  Timothy  over  the  Ephe- 
sians.  ''And  other  apostles  [Dr.  C  adds]  did  the  same 
in  other  places.""^  And  these  episcopal  appointments 
of  Timothy  and  Titus  by  Paul,  with  others  similar  by 
other  apostles  in  other  places,  he  affirms  were  the  very 
changes  to  which  Jerome  alludes,  made  "  by  the  apos- 
tles themselves,"  at  the  time  mentioned  in  first  Corin- 
thians i,  12,  and  yet  it  was  on  Paul's  epistle  to  Titus 
after  he  was  placed  in  Crete,  that  Jerome  founds  his 
argument  that  bishops  and  presbyters  w^ere  the  same  in 
the  apostolical  institutions  and  language  at  the  time 
when  that  epistle  was  written  ! 

4.  The  last  consideration  I  shall  mention  is,  that 
Dr.  C.'s  interpretation  puts  on  Jerome  a  perfect  fool's- 
cap.  Because  his  express  object  was  to  show  that  as 
•presbyters  know  that  it  is  hij  the  custom  of  the  church  that 
they  are  subject  to  him  who  is  their  president,  so  bishops 
ought  to  know  that  they  are  above  presbyters,  more  by 
the  custom  of  the  church  than  by  the  true  dispensation  of 
Christ.  The  very  reverse  of  which  Dr.  C.'s  construc- 
tion forces  upon  him. 

The  only  rational  construction,  therefore,  which  it 
w^ould  seem,  in  fairness  to  Jerome,  can  be  put  upon  his 
language  is,  that  his  reference  to  the  passage  in  first 
Corinthians  is  by  way  of  allusion  merely,  in  the  same 
manaer  as  we  still  describe  such  parties  in  churches  as 
addict  themselves  to  favourite  ministerial  leaders,  by 
representing  them  as  saying,  "  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of 
Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas." 

There  was  one  consequence  which  Dr.  C.  found  his 
construction  involved  in,  which,  one  would  think,  should 
have  convinced  him  that  he  had  misinterpreted  Jerome. 
This  distinguished  father  expressly  says,  that  before 

*Pagc  101. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  87 

there  were  by  the  devil's  instinct  such  parties  in  rehgion 
as  he  speaks  of,  "  the  churches  were  governed  bj  the 
common  council  of  presbyters."  No,  says  Dr.  C,  "he 
is  certainly  wrong  in  saying  that ;  even  before  the  divi- 
sions at  Corinth  the  church  was  governed  by  a  common 
council  of  presbyters,  except  in  subordination  to  the 
authority  of  the  apostles.""^  Certainly,  Dr.  C. ;  if  Jerome 
had  said  so  it  would  have  been  "  certainly  wrong ;"  and 
he  certainly  was  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  New 
Testament  to  know  this,  and  would  never  have  risked 
his  reputation  on  so  silly  an  assertion.  But  he  never 
said  so,  and  the  manifest  absurdity  of  it  proves  that  he 
never  meant  so  ;  but  that  his  allusion  was  to  a  period 
subsequent  to  the  apostolical  age,  when  the  churches 
no  longer  enjoyed  the  superintendence  of  inspired  guides 
and  rulers ;  and  when  ministers  also — not  the  people 
merely,  as  in  Corinth — began  to  form  parties  for  them- 
selves rather  than  to  make  disciples  of  Christ.  Dr.  C. 
might,  therefore,  have  well  spared  himself  the  long  chain 
of  argumentation  by  which  he  gravely  labours  to  dis- 
prove the  imputed  sentiment  of  Jerome.  The  passages 
quoted  from  that  very  learned  father  do  not  express  it, 
and  there  is  the  amplest  reason  to  believe  that  he  never 
entertained  it. 

But  Dr.  C.  thinks  that  he  finds  a  flaw  in  Dr.  Miller's 
translation  of  one  word  in  the  quotations  from  Jerome, 
which  he  conceives  calculated  to  support  the  idea  "  that 
a  long  time  elapsed  before  bishops  were  set  over  the 
churches."  The  word  objected  to  in  the  translation  is 
"  afterward.'^  That  this  word  necessarily  implies  "  a 
long  time"  after,  I  cannot  perceive.  However,  Dr.  C. 
states  that  the  word  used  by  Jerome,  according  to 
Jeremy  Taylor,  is  postquam  ;  on  which  he  then  takes  the 
occasion  to  furnish  a  critical  disquisition  of  considerable 
length  to  prove  that  postquam  does  not  mean  afterrvard, 

•Paffe  117. 


88  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

but  after  that,  literally,  after  which,  referring  to  the  time 
when  a  thing  was  done,  "  as  [he  continues]  in  this  very 
case  from  Jerome."  That  is  to  say,  Dr.  C.  here  affirms 
that  according  to  the  true  critical  import  of  this  word 
'postquam,  Jerome  meant  to  be  understood  that  "  before 
that  time  [viz.,  that  precise  period  spoken  of  by  Paul  in 
his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians]  the  common  council 
of  presbyters  governed .  the  church ;  after  that,  the 
bishops."*  And  yet  it  has  been  shown  above  that  it 
was  specially  to  apostolical  epistles  written  after  that 
time  that  Jerome  refers,  in  proof  that  presbyters  and 
bishops  were  still  the  same. 

But  says  Dr.  C,  '■' postea  is  the  word  Jerome  would 
have  used  if  he  had  meant  what  Dr.  Miller  attributes  to 
him."t  Well,  although  I  have  not  Jerome's  original 
work  at  hand  to  examine,  as  it  seems  neither  had  Dr. 
C,  yet,  as  he  takes  his  extract  from  Jeremy  Taylor,  I 
will  take  mine  from  Dr.  Campbell.  Now  Dr.  Campbell 
extracts  a  passage  from  Jerome,  which,  if  not  taken 
from  the  same  place  as  that  quoted  by  Taylor,  was  evi- 
dently written  by  Jerome  in  reference  to  precisely  the 
same  subject  and  occasion.  In  that  passage,  according 
to  Dr.  Campbell's  extract,  postea  is  the  word  used  by 
Jerome,  and  consequently,  by  Dr.  C.'s  own  admission, 
means  "  what  Dr.  Miller  attributes  to  him."  The  whole 
sentence,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Campbell,  stands  thus : — 
"  Quod  diUiem. postea  [Jerome  had  been  speaking  imme- 
diately before,  says  Dr.  Campbell,  of  the  times  of  the 
apostles]  unus  electus  est,  qui  cseteris  prgeponeretur,  in 
schismatis  remedium  factum  est,  ne  unusquisque  ad  se 
trahens,  Christi  ecclesiam  rumperet.":}: 

*Pag;ell5,  f  Ibid. 

:J:  Lect.  on  Eccl.  Hist.  p.  118.  ["  But  that  one  was  aflenoard  elected 
to  be  set  over  tlie  rest  was  for  the  prevention  of  schism,  that  individuals 
might  not  sever  the  church  of  Christ  by  drawing  off  parties  to  themselves." 
The  distinction  between  fostquam  and  postea  is  too  obvious  to  justify  Dr. 
C.'s  parade  of  learning  in  his  very  unnecessary  attack  on  Dr.  Miller's  trans- 
lation.    PosU^umn   is   a  conjunctiori ;  postea  an  adverb.     They  may   both 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  89 

By  Dr.  C.'s  own  concession,  then,  this  point  is  settled 
beyond  farther  controversy.  In  another  part  of  the  pro- 
cess under  review.  Dr.  C.  asserts  that "  the  express  state- 
ment of  Jerome,  in  the  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Miller, 
[as  above  given]  establishes"  the  following  particulars : — 
"  1.  That  the  bishops  of  the  primitive  church  were  a 
distinct  order  of  clergy  from  those  presbytei's  who  were 
authorized  to  preach  and  administer  sacraments,  and 
superior  to  them."  2.  "  That  each  bishop  had  under 
him  a  number  of  congregations,  with  their  pastors,  whom 
he  governed."  3.  *'  That  this  kind  of  episcopacy  was 
considered  by  the  whole  primitive  church  as  an  institu- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ."!  (Dr.  C.'s  numbering  of  the 
above  particulars  is  1,  3,  and  5.) 

Now  the  reader  will  please  observe,  that  the  question 
here  for  the  present  is  not  whether  this  was  the  actual 
state  of  things  in  the  primitive  church, — that  is,  in  the 
apostolical  age,  as  is  obviously  meant, — but  whether,  in 
the  passage  quoted  from  Jerome  by  Dr.  Miller,  and 
copied  above,  it  is  "  the  express  statement  of  Jerome^'' 
that  it  was  so,  and  was  so  considered  ''by  the  ivhole^^xi- 
mitive  church."  This  is  Dr.  C.'s  unqualified  assevera- 
tion. But  although  I  have  read  over  the  passage  in 
question  again  and  again,  and  as  carefully  as  I  am  able, 
if  any  one  can  find  in  it  any  such  ''  express  statement 
of  Jerome"  as  Dr.  C.  avers  it  to  contain,  I  must  confess 
that  his  ocular  as  well  as  his  mental  vision  must  be 
strangely  different  from  mine. 

Assuming  then  that  the  first  and  second  of  the  above 
particulars  (Dr.  C.'s  first  and  third)  are  established  ''  by 
the  express  statement  of  Jerome,"  his  next  step  in  the 
process  is  to  affirm  that  another  "  flows  from  them," 
viz.,  "  that  these  bishops  were  exclusively  invested  with 

mean  after  that,  but  in  different  senses,  as  the  English  reader  will   perceive 
by    an  example. — '■'After  that   [jiostquam]    presbyters  ceased   to   rule   the 
churr^h,  bishops  jjoverned  it."      "  Presbyters  first  governed  the  church,  after 
that,  \J)n.stra,^^  bishops." — Ed.] 
fPage  104. 


90  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

the  right  of  ordaining."  To  this  the  answer  simply  is, 
that  Jerome's  express  statement  estabhshes  no  such 
thing  as  Dr.  C.  affirms  it  does  in  the  second  particular 
above  mentioned;  and  consequently,  that  this  farther 
one  said  to  "  flow  from"  the  others  is  equally  imagin- 
ary. Its  foundation  being  taken  away  it  falls  itself,  of 
course. 

In  confirmation  of  his  inference,  however,  Dr.  C.  re- 
peats a  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Bowden  from  Jerome, 
as  follows  :  "  For  what  does  a  bishop  which  a  presbyter 
may  not  do,  excepting  ordination."  And  then  adds, — 
"  This  passage  shows  plainly  that  the  presbyters  had 
not  the  power  of  ordaining,  but  that  this  belonged  exclu- 
sively to  the  bishop."^  It  shows  plainly  that  this  was 
the  case  in  Jerome's  time,  about  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century,  I  grant ;  but  it  shows  nothing  more.  Indeed 
the  whole  drift  of  his  argument,  and  the  language  he 
uses,  both  demonstrate  that  this  was  what  he  meant. 
He  had  been  expressly  proving  that  no  distinction  ori- 
ginally existed  between  bishops  and  presbyters ;  that 
they  were  one  and  the  same  order;  and  that  in  the 
church  of  Alexandria,  even  down  to  a  comparatively 
late  period,  presbyters  had  constituted  their  own  bishop 
whenever  a  vacancy  occurred,  as  the  army  in  the  days 
of  imperial  Rome  made  an  emperor,  or  the  deacons  for- 
merly an  archdeacon-t     He  then  comes  down  to  his  own 

*  Page  107. 

t  With  this  case  before  him  is  it  not  surprising  that  Dr.  C.  should  make 
the  assertion  he  does,  pp.  140,  141,  that  up  [down  1]  to  the  time  of  Euse- 
bius  in  the  fourth  century,  there  is  no  case  of  ordination  by  presbyters,  as  he 
believes,  "  even  alleged"  by  the  opponents  of  the  high-church  scheme  1  In 
contradiction  of  this,  I  need  only  cite  that  very  eminent  critic,  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, whose  works  are  common  in  this  country  as  well  as  in  Europe,  who, 
in  reference  to  this  very  case,  thus  expresses  himself: — "  I  know  it  has  been 
said  that  this  relates  only  to  the  election  of  the  bishop  of  x\lexandria,  and 
not  to  his  ordination.  To  me  it  is  manifest  that  it  relates  to  both  ;  or,  to 
express  myself  with  greater  precision,  it  was  the  intention  of  that  father 
[Jerome]  to  signify  that  no  other  ordination  than  this  election,  and  those 
ceremonies  with  which  the  presbyters  might  please  to  accompany  it,  such 
as  the  instalment  and  salutation,  was  then  and  there  thought  necessary   to 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  91 

time,  using  the  present  tense  of  the  verb,  not  the  past, — 
"Quid  enimyJzceV,  excepta  ordinatione,  episcopus,  quod 
presbyter  wolfaciatr  "  What  does  a  bishop  V  &c.  As 
if  he  had  said,  "  Even  now,  what  power  does  a  bishop 
exercise  which  a  presbyter  may  not  exercise,  except  the 

one  who  had  been  ordained  a  presbyter  before ;  that,  according  to  the 
usage  of  that  church,  this  form  was  all  that  was  requisite  to  constitute  one 
of  the  presbyters  their  bishop."  Lect.  on  Eccles.  Hist.,  p.  117.  Here 
then  is  alleged  a  series  of  instances,  before  the  time  of  Eusebius,  in  one  of 
the  most  renowned  churches  of  antiquity,  of  the  ordination  in  form  or  in 
fact  even  of  bishops  by  presbyters.  Yet  Dr.  C,  with  his  characteristic 
boldness  of  assertion,  affirms  in  another  place,  page  146,  that  "  before  the 
fourth  century  such  a  thing  [as  ordination  by  presbyters]  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  thougiit  of!" 

But  long  before  Dr.  Campbell  the  same  thing  was  alleged,  in  terms,  if 
possible,  still  more  explicit,  by  that  most  reverend,  very  learned  primate  of 
Ireland,  Archbishop  Usher.  In  his  letter  to  Dr.  Bernard,  that  eminent 
Episcopalian  says, — "  I  have  ever  declared  my  opinion  to  be  that  episcopus 
et  presbyter,  gradu  tantum  ditTerunt  non  ordme,  [that  bishop  and  presbyter 
differ  in  degree  only,  not  in  order, ^  and  consequently,  that  in  places  where 
bishops  cannot  be  had,  the  ordination  by  presbyters  stands  valid."  And  in 
his  answer  to  Baxter  the  same  distinguished  prelate  says,  "  that  the  king 
[Charles  I.]  having  asked  him  at  the  Isle  of  Wight,  whether  he  found  in 
antiquity  that  presbyters  alone  ordained  any  ?  he  replied  Yes,  and  that  he 
could  show  his  majesty  more, — even  ivhere  presbyters  alone  successively 
ordained  bishops  :  and  instanced  in  Hierom's  [Jerome's]  words,  {Epist.  ad 
Evagrium)  of  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria  choosing  and  making  their  own 
bishops,  from  the  days  of  Mark  till  Heraclas  and  Dionysius."  This  then 
was  alleged  by  that  very  learned  episcopal  antiquary,  not  only  as  a  case  of 
ordination  by  presbyters  before  the  time  of  i^usebius,  but  of  the  successive 
ordinations  of  bishops  by  presbyters  for  about  two  hundred  years.  It  shows, 
moreover,  that  he  understood  Jerome  exactly  in  the  sense  here  averred. 
And  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten,  that,  in  addition  to  his  pre-eminent  qualifi- 
cations as  a  critic  and  antiquary,  he  was  himself  an  archbishop* 

The  Smectymnian  divines,  in  the  same  age  with  Usher,  alleged  various 
proofs  of  presbyters  ordaining,  evidently  within  the  period  alluded  to  by 
Dr.  C.f  Smectymnuus  was  a  fictitious  name  composed  of  the  initial  letters 
of  the  names  of  Stephen  Marshal,  Edward  Calamy,  Thomas  Young, 
Matthew  Newcomen,  and  William  Spurstow. 

The  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper,  an  eminent  and  venerable  minister  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  alleged  the  same  in  his  Funeral  Discourse  on  the 
late  Bishop  Asbury.;^-  It  was  also  alleged  in  the  work  entitled  "  A  Defence 
of  our  Fathers,  and  of  the  original  Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church." 

*  Dr.  C.  takes  upon  him  to  say,  p.  180,  that  there  is  no  author  produced  in  support  of 
the  latter  statement,  above  mentioned,  in  reference  to  Archbishop  Usher,  and  yet,  in  the 
note  to  Neal's  History  of  the  Punians,  the  authority  for  it  is  distinctly  stated.  Neal's 
History  of  the  Puritans,  Ain.  Ed.  vol.  ii,  pp.  412,  413,  note,  and  the  reference  there  to 
Baxter's  Life,  p.  206. 

+  Ibid.  p.  412. 

j  Appendix,  pp.  218,219. 


92  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

single  one  of  ordaining?"  And  even  this  superiority, 
in  the  single  item  of  ordaining,  according  to  the  tenor 
of  Jerome's  whole  argument,  was  "Z>y  the  custom  of  the 
church,''  {consuetudine  ecclesice,)  rather  than  by  "  the  true 
dispensation  of  Christ ;"  that  is,  of  the  Church's  making, 
and  not  of  Divine  institution.  It  may  not  be  amiss  to 
observe,  that  even  among  the  papal  doctors  and  theo- 
logues  in  the  famous  council  of  Trent,  the  sentiment 
last  named  was  precisely  the  construction  put  on  the 
language  of  Jerome  ;  and  it  was  added  that  St.  Austin, 
(Augustine,)  another  very  eminent  father  of  that  age,  and 
himself  a  very  distinguished  bishop,  was  of  the  same 
opinion.  Some  disputed  in  the  council  that  "  the  degree 
of  a  bishop  was  an  order  ;  and  others  that  aboue  priest- 
hood there  was  nothing  but  iurisdiction — and  some  beeing 
of  a  middle  opinion,  that  is,  that  it  is  an  eminent  dignitie, 
or  office  in  the  order.  The  famous  saying  of  St.  Hierom, 
[Jerome,]  and  the  authority  of  St.  Austin,  [Augustine] 
were  alleaged,  who  say  that  the  degree  of  a  bishop  hath 
been  most  ancient,  but  yet  an  ecclesiasticall  constitU' 
tion."^ 

But  what  is  yet  most  amazing,  if  any  thing  in  Dr.  C. 
can  any  longer  amaze,  after  himself  quoting  a  plain  ex- 
plicit  passage  in  Jerome  in  proof  that  a  presbyter  could 
do  every  thing  that  a  bishop  did,  with  one  single  excep- 
tion,— that  of  ordination, — in  the  very  next  paragraph 
he  says,  "  It  is  shown  by  another  passage  from  Jerome, 
*  that  there  was  also  another  thing  that  a  bishop  did 
which  a  presbyter  could  not  do,  viz.,  confirmation:  thus 
in  the  same  breath  making  Jerome  affirm  and  deny  the 
same  proposition.  Is  it  not  more  probable  that  Dr.  C. 
misinterprets  Jerome  in  the  place  last  alluded  to,  and 
from  which  he  draws  his  inference,  (for  it  is  but  an  in- 
ference,) than  that  that  eminent  father  thus  palpably  con- 
tradicts himself?  One  would  suppose  that  the  obscure 
passage  "should  rather  be  interpreted  by  the  plain  one. 

*  Paul  Sarpis'  Ili.st.  of  the  Conn,  of  Trent,  p.  591. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  93 

Anotlier  conclusion  at  which  Dr.  C.  arrives,  in  the 
logical  process  under  review,  is,  that  "  in  Jerome's  esti- 
mation apostles  and  hishops  were  the  samey* 

Now  it  has  been  most  unequivocally  proved  above, 
that  "in  Jerome's  estimation,"  in  the  apostles'  daj^s, 
hishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same :  and  as  things 
equal  to  one  and  the  same  thing  must  necessarily  be 
equal  to  each  other,  it  follows  most  conclusively  that 
"in  Jerome's  estimation"  apostles  and  presbyters  were 
the  same.  If  Dr.  C.  rejects  this  consequence,  I  still 
submit  it  to  the  reader. 

All  that  Dr.  C.  says  in  regard  to  the  Alexandrian  or- 
dinations by  presbyters, — even  of  bishops  by  presby- 
ters,— will  be  so  completely,  and  I  must  think  conclu- 
sively answered  in  an  extract  on  that  subject  from  an 
eminent  critic,  which  I  shall  presently  submit  to  the 
reader,  that  I  judge  it  preferable  to  waive  any  remarks 
of  my  own  in  regard  to  it,  when  others  so  vastly  better 
than  any  I  am  capable  of  are  furnished  to  my  hand. 

I  may  just  observe,  by  the  way,  that  I  have  become 
so  familiarized  in  Dr.  C.'s  style  with  such  phrases  as 
the  following — "  it  is  impossible  that  they  could  have 
been  ordained  by  presbyters," — "  neither  can  it  be  be- 
lieved,"— "  could  not  possibly  have  passed  unnoticed," 
&.C.,  &c.,  that  they  no  longer  occasion  me  any  alarm. 
And  it  has  particularly  occurred  to  me  that,  possibly, 
there  may  be  a  wider  range  in  possibility  than  Dr.  C 
has  well  considered. 

He  adds  as  a  final  remark,  too,  that  "  Blondel  admits 
that  episcopacy  was  established  in  Alexandria  above  a 
century  before  this."!  We  admit  more,  viz.,  that  it  was 
episcopal  all  the  while, — its  bishops  being  both  chosen 
and  ordained,  in  fact  if  not  in  form,  by  its  presbyters, 
as  shall  presently  be  more  fully  shown. 

But  says  Dr.  C,  "It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Dr. 

•Page  108.  tPage  111. 


94  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

Miller  in  this  attempt  to  prove  that  the  second  ordination 
was  performed  by  presbyters,  has  been  driven  to  admit 
a  second  ordinatioif — ''  a  second  ordination  to  what  ?" 
he  exclaims.  His  own  reply  is,  "  To  a  superior  order, 
necessarily.  Certainly  [he  continues]  not  to  an  inferior 
station, — surely  not  to  the  same  he  then  occupied,  ne- 
cessarily, therefore,  to  a  superior."^  Now  mark  :  Dr. 
C.'s  assertion  here  is,  that  such  a  second  ordination  by 
'presbyters^  as  Dr.  Miller  had  contended  was  the  prac- 
tice in  the  Alexandrian  church,  supposing  it  to  have  ac- 
tually taken  place,  necessarily  constituted  a  superior  order. 
Be  it  so  ;  for  we  will  not  dispute  about  the  rvord  "  order." 
Whether  it  be  called  order,  degree,  or  office,  it  matters 
not  to  us  :  the  thing  is  what  we  look  at :  and  Dr.  C.  has 
here  furnished  us,  out  of  his  own  mouth,  a  complete  an- 
swer to  the  main  objection  which  has  ever  been  urged 
by  Dr.  C.  and  his  party  against  the  episcopacy  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  rests  precisely  on 
this  basis.  I  wish  to  add  nothing-  to  what  Dr.  C.  con- 
cedes  in  this  passage  for  the  complete  vindication  of  our 
episcopal  organization,  except,  in  the  words  of  Jerome, 
that  it  is  hy  the  custom  of  the  churchy — an  ecclesiastical 
constitution, — and  not  pretended  to  be  by  divine  rights 
nor  of  essential  or  universal  obligation. 

The  extract  that  I  promised  above  in  support  of  the 
views  I  have  taken  of  the  ordinations  in  the  apostolical 
church  of  Alexandria  for  two  hundred  years  or  more, 
and  of  the  true  testimony  of  Jerome,  in  farther  answer 
to  Dr.  C.'s  remarks  on  these  subjects,  I  now  subjoin. 
It  is  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Campbell. 

"  The  testimony  which  I  shall  bring  from  him  [Jerome, 
says  this  able  critic]  regards  the  practice  that  had  long 
subsisted  at  Alexandria.  I  shall  give  you  the  passage 
in  his  own  words,  from  his  epistle  to  Evagrius.  '  Alex- 
andrise  a  Marco  evangelista  usque  ad  Heraclam  et  Dio- 

*Pa2e  112. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  95 

nysium  episcopos,  presbyteri  semper  unum  exse  electum, 
in  excelsiori  gradu  coUocatum,  episcopum  nominabant : 
quomodo  si  exercitus  imperatorem  faciat :  aut  diaconi 
eligant  de  se  quern  industrium  noverint,  et  archidiaco- 
num  vocent.'  I  know  it  has  been  said  that  this  relates 
only  to  the  election  of  the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  and 
not  to  his  ordination.  To  me  it  is  manifest  that  it  re- 
lates to  both  ;  or,  to  express  myself  with  greater  pre- 
cision, it  was  the  intention  of  that  father  to  signify 
that  no  other  ordination  than  this  election, — and  those 
ceremonies  with  which  the  presbyters  might  please 
to  accompany  it,  such  as  the  instalment  and  salutation, 
— was  then  and  there  thought  necessary  to  one  who  had 
been  ordained  a  presbyter  before  ;  that  according  to  the 
tisage  of  that  church  this  form  was  all  that  was  requi- 
site to  constitute  one  of  the  presbyters  their  bishop. 
But  as  I  am  sensible  that  unsupported  assertions  are 
entitled  to  no  regard  on  either  side,  I  shall  assign  my 
reasons  from  the  author's  own  words,  and  then  leave 
every  one  to  judge  for  himself.  Jerome,  in  the  prece- 
ding part  of  this  letter,  had  been  maintaining  in  oppo- 
sition to  some  deacon  who  had  foolishly  boasted  of  the 
order  of  deacons  as  being  superior  to  the  order  of  pres- 
byters,— Jerome,  I  say,  had  been  maintaining  that  in 
the  original  and  apostolical  constitution  of  the  church, 
bishop  and  presbyter  were  but  two  names  for  the  same 
office.  That  ye  may  be  satisfied  that  what  he  says  im- 
plies no  less,  I  shall  give  it  you  in  his  own  words — 
'Audio  quondam  in  tantam  erupisse  vecordiam,  ut  dia- 
conos  presbyteris,  id  est  episcopis,  anteferret.  Nam  cum 
apostolus  perspicue  doceat  eosdem  esse  presbyteros  quos 
episcopos,  quid  patitur  mensarum  et  viduarum  minister, 
ut  supra  eos  se  tumidus  efierat.'  For  this  purpose  he 
had  in  a  cursory  manner  pointed  out  some  of  those 
arguments  from  the  New  Testament  which  I  took  occa- 
sion in  a  former  discourse  to  illustrate.  In  regard  to  the 
introduction  of  the  episcopal  order  as  then  commonly 


96  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

understood,  in  contradistinction  to  that  of  presbyter,  he 
sio-nifies  that  it  did  not  exist  from  the  beginning,  but 
was  merely  an  expedient  devised  after  the  times  of  the 
apostles,  in  order  the  more  effectually  to  preserve  unity 
in  every  church,  as  in  case  of  differences  among  the 
pastors  it  would  be  of  importance  to  have  one  acknow- 
ledged superior  in  whose  determination  they  were  bound 
to  acquiesce.  His  words  are,  '  Quod  autem  'postea,^ — 
he  had  been  speaking  immediately  before  of  the  times 
of  the  apostles, — '  unus  electus  est,  qui  cgeteris  prsepo- 
neretur,  in  schismatis  remedium  factum  est,  ne  unus 
quisque  ad  se  trahens,  Christi  ecclesiam  rumperet.' 
Then  follows  the  passage  quoted  above  concerning  the 
church  of  Alexandria.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than 
that  he  is  giving  an  account  of  the  first  introduction  of 
the  episcopate,  (as  the  word  was  then  understood,)  which 
he  had  been  maintaining  was  not  a  different  order  from 
that  of  presbyter,  but  merely  a  certain  pre-eminence 
conferred  by  election  for  the  expedient  purpose  of  pre- 
venting schism.  And  in  confirmation  of  what  he  had 
advanced  that  this  election  was  all  that  at  first  was  re 
quisite,  he  tells  the  story  of  the  manner  that  had  long 
been  practised  and  held  sufficient  for  constituting  a 
bishop  in  the  metropolis  of  Egypt.  It  is  accordingly 
introduced  thus,  '  Nam  et  Alexandrise,'  as  a  case  en- 
tirely apposite  :  to  wit,  an  instance  of  a  church  in  which 
a  simple  election  had  continued  to  be  accounted  suffi- 
cient for  a  longer  time  than  in  other  churches, — an 
instance  which  had  remained  a  vestige  and  evidence  of 
the  once  universal  practice.  Now  if  he  meant  only  to 
toll  us,  as  some  would  have  it,  that  there  the  election  of 
the  bishop  was  in  the  presbyters,  there  was  no  occasion 
to  recur  to  Alexandria  for  an  example,  or  to  a  former 
period ;  as  that  continued  still  to  be  a  very  common,  if 
not  the  general  practice  throughout  the  church.  And 
though  it  be  allowed  to  have  been  still  the  custom  in 
most  places  to  get  also  the  concurrence  or  consent  of 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  97 

the  people,  this  shows  more  strongly  how  frivolous  the 
argument  from  their  being  electors  would  have  been  in 
favour  of  presbyters  as  equal  in  point  of  order  to  bishops, 
and  consequently  superior  to  deacons ;  since  in  regard 
to  most  places  as  much  as  this  could  be  said  concerning 
those  who  are  inferior  to  deacons, — the  very  meanest 
of  the  people,  who  had  all  a  suffrage  in  the  election  of 
their  bishop.  But,  understood  in  the  way  I  have  ex- 
plained it,  the  argument  has  both  sense  and  strength  in 
it,  and  is  in  effect  as  follows  : — There  can  be  no  essen- 
tial difference  between  the  order  of  bishop  and  that  of 
presbyter,  since  to  make  a  bishop  nothing  more  was 
necessary  at  first  (and  of  this  practice  the  church  of 
Alexandria  remained  long  an  example)  than  the  nomi- 
nation of  his  fellow-presbyters;  and  no  ceremony  of 
consecration  was  required  but  what  was  performed  by 
them,  and  consisted  chiefly  in  placing  him  in  a  higher 
seat  and  saluting  him  bishop. 

"  Add  to  this,  that  the  very  examples  this  father  makes 
use  of  for  illustration,  show  manifestly  that  his  meaning 
must  have  been  as  I  have  represented  it.  His  first  in- 
stance is  the  election  of  an  emperor  by  the  army,  which 
he  calls  expressly  making  an  emperor.  And  is  it  not  a 
matter  of  public  notoriety  that  the  emperors  raised  in 
this  manner  did,  from  that  moment,  without  waiting  any 
other  inauguration,  assume  the  imperial  titles  and  exer- 
cise the  imperial  power  ?  And  did  they  not  treat  all  as 
rebels  who  opposed  them  ?  If  possible,  the  other  ex- 
ample is  still  more  decisive.  To  constitute  an  arch- 
deacon, in  the  sense  in  w^hich  the  word  was  then  used,  no 
other  form  of  investiture  was  necessary  but  his  election, 
which  was  in  Jerome's  time  solely  in  his  fellow- deacons; 
though  this  also,  with  many  other  things,  came  after- 
ward into  the  hands  of  the  bishop.  By  this  example, 
he  also  very  plainly  acquaints  us,  that  the  bishop  origi- 
nally stood  in  the  same  relation  to  the  presbyters,  in 
which  the  archdeacon,  in  his  own  time,  did  to  the  other 

7 


98  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

deacons  :  and  was,  by  consequence,  no  other  than  what 
the  archpresbyter  came  to  be  afterward,  the  first  among 
the  presbyters.  But  does  not  Jerome,  after  all,  admit 
in  the  very  next  sentence  the  superiority  of  bishops  in 
the  exclusive  privilege  of  ordaining  1  True  :  he  admits 
it  as  a  distinction  that  then  actually  obtained ;  but  the 
whole  preceding  part  of  his  letter  was  written  to  evince 
that  from  the  beginning-  it  was  not  so.  From  ancient 
times  he  descends  to  times  then  modern,  and  from  dis- 
tant countries  he  comes  to  his  own;  concluding  that 
still  there  was  but  one  article  of  moment  whereby  their 
powers  were  discriminated.  '  Quid  enim  facit,  excepta 
ordinatione,  episcopus,  quod  presbyter  non  faciat?' — 
This  indeed  proves  sufficiently  that  at  that  time  presby- 
ters were  not  allowed  to  ordain.  But  it  can  prove 
nothing  more  ;  for  in  regard  to  his  sentiments  about  the 
rise  of  this  difference,  it  was  impossible  to  be  more  ex- 
plicit than  he  had  been  through  the  whole  epistle.  I 
shall  only  add,  that  for  my  part  I  cannot  conceive  an- 
other interpretation  that  can  give  either  weight  to  his 
argument  or  consistency  to  his  words.  The  interpreta- 
tion I  have  given  does  both,  and  that  without  any  vio- 
lence to  the  expression.  I  might  plead  Jerome's  opinion 
in  this  case — I  do  plead  only  his  testimony.  I  say  I 
might  plead  his  opinion  as  the  opinion  of  one  who  lived 
in  an  age  when  the  investigation  of  the  origin  of  any 
ecclesiastical  order  or  custom  must  have  been  incom- 
parably easier  than  it  can  be  to  us  at  this  distance  of 
time.  I  might  plead  his  opinion  as  the  opinion  of  a 
man  who  had  more  erudition  than  any  person  then  in 
the  church — the  greatest  linguist,  the  greatest  critic,  the 
greatest  antiquary  of  them  all.  But  I  am  no  friend  to 
an  implicit  deference  to  human  authority  in  matters  of 
opinion.  Let  his  sentiments  be  no  farther  regarded  than 
the  reasons  by  which  they  are  supported  are  found  to 
be  good.  I  do  plead  only  his  testimony,  as  a  testimony 
in  relation  to  a  matter  of  fact  both  recent  and  noto- 

7* 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  99 

rious ;  since  it  regarded  the  then  late  uniform  practice 
of  the  churcli  of  Alexandria, — a  city  which,  before 
Constantinople  became  the  seat  of  empire,  was,  next  to 
Rome,  the  most  eminent  in  the  Christian  world. 

"  To  the  same  purpose  the  testimony  of  the  Alex- 
andrian patriarch  Eutychius  has  been  pleaded,  who,  in 
his  annals  of  that  church,  takes  notice  of  the  same  prac- 
tice, but  with  greater  particularity  of  circumstances  than 
had  been  done  by  Jerome.  Eutychius  tells  us  that  the 
number  of  presbyters  therein  was  always  twelve ;  and 
that  on  occasion  of  a  vacancy  in  the  episcopal  chair,  they 
chose  one  of  themselves,  whom  the  remaining  eleven 
ordained  bishop  by  imposition  of  hands  and  benediction. 
In  these  points  it  is  evident  there  is  nothing  that  can 
be  said  to  contradict  the  testimony  of  Jerome.  All  that 
can  be  affirmed  is,  that  the  one  mentions  particulars 
about  which  the  other  had  been  silent.  But  it  will  be 
said,  there  is  one  circumstance, — the  duration  assigned 
to  this  custom, — wherein  there  seems  to  be  a  real  con- 
tradiction. Jerome  brings  it  no  farther  down  than 
Heracla  and  Dionysius,  whereas  Eutychius  represents 
it  as  continuing  to  the  time  of  Alexander,  about  fifty 
years  later.  Now  it  is  not  impossible  that  a  circum- 
stantiated custom  might  have  been  in  part  abolished  at 
one  time,  and  in  part  at  another.  But  admit  that  in  this 
point  the  two  testimonies  are  contradictory,  that  will  by 
no  means  invalidate  their  credibility  as  to  those  points 
on  which  they  are  agreed.  The  difference,  on  the  con- 
trary— as  it  is  an  evidence  that  the  last  did  not  copy 
from  the  first,  and  that  they  are  therefore  two  witnesses, 
and  not  one  — serves  rather  as  a  confirmation  of  the  truth 
of  those  articles  wherein  they  concur.  And  this  is  our 
ordinary  method  of  judging  in  all  matters  depending  on 
human  testimony.  That  Jerome,  who  probably  spoke 
from  memory,  though  certain  as  to  the  main  point,  might 
be  somewhat  doubtful  as  to  the  precise  time  of  the  abo- 
lition of  the  custom,  is  rendered  even  probable  by  his 


100  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

mentioning,  with  a  view  to  mark  the  expiration  of  the' 
practice,  two  successive  bishops  rather  than  one.  For 
if  he  had  known  certainly  that  it  ended  with  Heracla, 
there  would  have  been  no  occasion  to  mention  Diony- 
sius ;  and  if  he  had  been  assured  of  its  continuance  ta 
the  time  of  Dionysius,  there  would  have  been  no  pro- 
priety in  mentioning  Heracla.'^^  But  says  Dr.  C.^ 
"  What  the  ancient  church  thought  of  ordination  by 
presbyters  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  state- 
ments. In  the  fourth  century" — dear  sir,  be  pleased  to 
stop  ;  if  by  "  the  ancient  church"  you  mean  the  church 
in  the  fourth  century,  when  Constantine,  "  that  truly 
most  excellent  and  admirable  emperor,"  as,  after  Wolf- 
gang, you  are  pleased  to  call  him,  had  poured  in  upon 
the  ecclesiastics  a  flood  of  wealth  and  dignities,  and  the 
whole  hierarchal  corps  of  patriarchs,  exarchs,  metro- 
politans, archbishops,  bishops,  country  bishops,  arch- 
priests,  priests,  archdeacons,  deacons,  acolyths,  exorcists^ 
and  doorkeepers  became  organized.  Indeed  the  foun- 
dations of  the  supremacy  of  the  prince  of  hierarchs,  the 
pope  himself,  had  become  in  that  age  pretty  securely 
established,  not  indeed  by  the  characteristics  which 
should  distinguish  a  Christian  bishop,  but  by  the  dazzling 
magnificence  and  splendour  of  his  see,  which  in  that 
century  had  become  an  object  of  such  ambition  as  to  be 
the  occasion  of  the  most  barbarous  and  furious  civil 
war  between  the  contending  factions  of  the  rival  can- 
didates for  the  episcopal  throne.  Apostolical  mother  of 
churches  ! — "the  greatest,  most  ancient,  and  universally 
known," — with  which  ''on  account  of  thy  greater  pre- 
eminence, it  is  necessary  that  every  church  should 
agree !"  This  was  thy  character  in  the  fourth  century , 
and  spread  the  baleful  influence  of  thy  conspicuous 
example  throughout  Christendom  ;  and  yet  it  is  from 
acts  of  the  church  in  that  age  as  "  the  ancient  church" 

*  Lect.  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  pp.  117-121. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  101 

that  Dr.  C.  brings  authorities  to  settle  the  question  be- 
tween the  rights  of  presbyters  and  bishops ! — an  age  ia 
which  there  were  not  wanting  bishops  so  insufferablj 
inflated  with  the  arrogant  conceit  of  their  lofty  pre- 
eminence, as  scarcely  to  deign  to  see  mortals,  or  speak 
to  their  fellow-servants ! 

But  says  Dr.  C, ''  The  councils  of  '  the  ancient  church' 
in  the  fourth  century,  condemned  ordinations  by  pres- 
byters as  null,  because  not  performed  by  them  who 
were  bishops  verily  and  indeed."^  And  how  were  those 
councils  composed?  Dr.  C.  tells  us  himself,  page  140, 
"  The  presbyters  had  no  seat  in  councils  as  principals, 
but  might  sit  as  representatives  of  their  hishop  ;"  that  is, 
when  the  bishop  himself  could  not  be  present;  as  in 
the  case  alleged  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  who,  "  being 
unable  through  age  to  attend  the  Council  of  Nice,  was 
represented  by  his  presbyters."!  So  that  it  was  by  one 
of  the  very  parties  in  the  question  exclusively, — the 
prelates  themselves  who  composed  the  councils  in  those 
days,  by  the  favour  of  the  emperors  who  convened  them, 
— that  the  decisions  were  made  against  the  presbyters, 
who  were  denied  a  seat  except  in  some  instances,  as 
representatives  of  absent  bishops,  and  of  course  as  sub- 
ject to  their  instructions.  Were  these  councils  of  the 
apostolical  pattern  I  or  are  the  rights  of  presbyters  to 
be  absolutely  concluded  by  their  ex  parte  sentence  ? 
Yet  the  very  council  whose  sentence  Dr.  C.  alleges  as 
decisive  authority  in  this  question, — the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople,— was  exclusively  thus  composed  of  one  of 
the  parties  in  the  controversy  I 

Nay,  Dr.  C.  descends  even  to  the  councils  oii\ie  fifth 
century,  and  alleges  the  authority  of  their  decrees  to 
the  same  effect  •.% — a  century,  early  in  which  (as  a  speci- 
men of  the  manner  in  which  things  were  carried  even 

•Page  146.  f  Ibid.  J  Ibid, 


102  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

in  general  councils,  in  those  degenerate  days  of  episco- 
pal arrogance  and  domination)  the  lawless,  haughty, 
and  imperious  Bishop  Cyril  presided  in  an  oecumenical 
council,  the  transactions  of  which  are  branded  by  the 
learned  Mosheim  "  as  full  of  low  artifice,  contrary  to  all 
the  rules  of  justice,  and  even  destitute  of  the  least  air 
of  common  decency."^  And  that  this  was  not  a  mere 
exception,  a  singular  instance  of  unbridled  lawlessness 
and  violence  in  the  episcopal  councils  of  that  age,  ap- 
pears on  the  authority  of  the  same  eminent  historian ; 
who  states,  that  in  another  general  council,  held  before 
the  middle  of  that  century,  in  w^hich  Bishop  Dioscorus, 
the  successor  of  Cyril,  and  the  faithful  imitator  of  his 
arrogance  and  fury,  presided,  matters  were  carried  on 
with  the  same  want  of  equity  and  decency  that  had  dis- 
honoured and  characterized  the  proceedings  of  the  one 
just  above  named,  under  the  presidency  of  his  prede- 
cessor. And  if  the  reader  can  credit  it  on  the  authority 
of  the  best  historians,  such  was  the  infamous  brutality 
of  this  fifth  century  council,  that  even  a  bishop  against 
whom  the  lordly  and  dominant  Dioscorus  had  a  pique, 
was  publicly  scourged  iti  the  most  barbarous  manner,  by 
THE  ORDER  OF  THE  COUNCIL,  and  died  soon  after  of  the 
bruises  inflicted  on  him  in  that  assembly  of  jure  di~ 
vino  [by  divine  right]  successors  of  the  apostles ! 

After  such  a  relation  it  can  be  no  matter  of  wonder 
that  a  synod  in  which  such  atrocities  were  perpetrated, 
came  afterward  to  be  denominated  '^awodov  Itigtpikov,'"  a 
synod  of  robbers,  "  to  signify  that  every  thing  was  carried 
in  it  by  fraud  or  violence  !"t 

I  recite  such  outrages  with  no  pleasure,  but  with 
mortification  and  grief  for  the  Christian  name.  But 
since  Dr.  C.  thinks  it  of  importance  to  his  cause  to  urge 
the  ex  parte  decisions  of  synods  and  councils  in  that 
age,  it  is  proper  that  readers  who  may  not  be  in  the 

*  Vol,  ii,  p.  66.  tibid.  p.  74, 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  108 

habit  of  looking  into  such  things  should  be  made  ac- 
quainted  with  the  characters  by  whom,  and  the  manner 
in  which  their  transactions  were  too  often  governed,  as 
may  be  w^ell  supposed  in  controversies  involving  con- 
flicting claims  of  ecclesiastical  prerogative.  As  regards 
the  particular  case  of  the  presbyter  Aerius,  who,  on  the 
authority  of  Epiphanius,  is  stated  by  Dr.  O.,  p.  146,  to 
have  been  ''  condemned  as  a  heretic,"  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, because  he  "  maintained  that  presbyters  were 
equal  to  bishops,  and  had  a  right  to  ordain ;"  together 
with  *'  some  other  doctrines,"  as  Dr.  C.  adds, — as  to  his 
"other  doctrines,"  if  they  were  no  worse  than  that 
charged  in  the  first  count  of  the  indictment  against  him, 
above  stated,  the  reader  can  well  imagine  what  must 
have  been  the  temper  of  the  assembly  that  condemned 
him  as  a  heretic  for  that  cause.  He  is  said,  however,  to 
have  been  a  semi-arian  ;  and  in  so  far  as  this  part  of 
the  charges  against  him  is  concerned,  if  it  be  true,  we 
are  certainly  no  more  disposed  to  defend  him  than  Dr. 
C.  But  it  may  not  be  amiss  for  the  reader  to  be  re- 
minded that  denunciations  of  "  heresy,"  and  the  mad- 
dog  brand  of  "  heretic^'  in  the  age  under  review  and 
those  succeeding  it,  ought  to  be  received  with  great 
caution.  The  Methodist  reader  especially,  whether 
Arminian  or  Calvinistic,  will  be  sensible  of  the  appo- 
siteness  of  this  admonition,  when,  if  he  look  into  the 
chronological  tables  appended  to  the  valuable  Ecclesi- 
astical History  of  Mosheim  by  the  learned  translator,  he 
will  find  under  the  head  of  "  Heretics,  or  enemies  of 
revelation,"  in  juxtaposition  with  the  names  of  the  chief 
infidels  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  venerated  names 
of  "  the  Mora'V'ian  brethren,  and  the  followers  of  White- 
field,  Wesley,  and  others  of  the  same  stamp  !"  Would 
to  God  the  world  were  full  of  "  heretics"  of  that  "  same 
stamp." 

One  of  the  leading  tenets  of  Aerius  in  truth  was, 
*^  that  bishops  were  not  distinguished  from  presbyters 


104  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

hy  any  divi?ie  right ;  but  that,  according  to  the  institu-. 
tion  of  the  New  Testament,  their  offices  and  authority 
were  absolutely  the  same."^  It  is  perfectly  certain, 
also,  as  Mosheim  adds,  that  this  opinion  of  his  "  was 
highly  agreeable  to  many  good  Christians,  who  were 
no  longer  able  to  bear  the  tyranny  and  arrogance  of  the 
bishops  of  this  centurj"| — that  is,  the  fourth  century. 

He  farther  condemned  prayers  for  the  dead,  with  some 
of  the  stated  fasts  and  festivals,  "  and  other  rites  of 
that  nature,  in  which  [as  Mosheim  remarks]  the  multi- 
tude erroneously  imagine  that  the  life  and  soul  of  reli- 
gion consists.  His  great  purpose  [continues  the  same 
historian]  seems  to  have  been  that  of  reducing  Christi- 
anity to  its  primitive  simplicity ;"  is  it  then  any  longer 
to  be  wondered  at,  that  in  those  days  he  should  have 
been  condemned  as  a  "  heretac"  by  the  courtly  prelates 
who  basked  in  the  beams  of  imperial  favour  ?  And  yet, 
on  the  whole,  his  doctrinal  error  alone  excepted,  intelli- 
gent Christians  at  this  day  must  think  very  much  better 
of  him  than  of  many  of  those  who  condemned  him. 

It  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  also  that  the  work  of 
Bp.  Epiphanius  against  heresies,  to  which  Dr.  C.  refers  for 
authority  against  Aerius,  is  characterized  by  ecclesias- 
tical critics  as  a  work  that  "  has  little  or  no  reputation, 
is  full  of  inaccuracies  and  errors,  and  discovers  almost 
in  every  page  the  levity  and  ignorance  of  its  author.":}^ 

But  it  is  time  to  make  the  reader  acquainted  with  the 
truth  of  the  case  in  regard  to  Aerius.  This  I  will  do  in 
the  language  of  that  distinguished  Christian  antiquary 
Dr.  (afterward  Bishop)  Stillingfleet. 

"In  the  matter  itself,  [says  Stillingfleet,]  I  believe, 
upon  the  strictest  inquiry,  Medina's  judgment  will  prove 

*  Mosheim,  vol.  i,  p.  376.  t  Ibid. 

JMoslioim,  vol.  i,  p.  341).  Dr.  Jortin  says  of  Epiphanius  that  he  must 
have  been  either  a  (hipe  or  a  deceiver,  and  tluit  th's  is  the  cirilesl  thing  we 
can  say  of  him.  That  "learned  and  judicious  men,  who  hnve  examined  his 
writings,  have  been  forced  to  conclude  that,  with  all  his  learning  and  piety,  [1] 
he  was  credulous,  careless,  censorious,  and  one  loho  made  no  scruple  of  ro- 
mancing and  misrepresenting.''^  Remarks  on  Eco.  Hist.,  vol.  i,  pp.  301,  303. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  105 

true,  that  Jerome,  Austin,  Ambrose,  Sedulius,  Primasius, 
Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Theophylact,  were  all  of  Aerius 
his  judgment  as  to  the  identity  of  both  name  and  order  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  primitive  church ;  but  here 
lay  the  difference.  Aerius  from  hence  proceeded  to 
separation  from  bishops  and  their  churches,  because 
they  were  bishops.  And  Blondell  well  observes,  that 
the  main  gromid  why  Aerius  was  condemned,  was  for 
unnecessary  separation  from  the  church  of  Sebastia; 
and  those  bishops,  too,  who  agreed  with  him  in  other 
things  :  whereas,  Jerome  was  so  far  from  thinking  it 
necessary  to  cause  a  schism  in  the  church  by  separating 
from  bishops,  that  his  opinion  is  clear,  that  the  first  in- 
stitution of  them  was  for  preventing  schisms ;  and 
therefore,  for  peace  and  unity,  he  thought  their  institu- 
tion very  useful  in  the  church  of  God."* 

Thus  it  appears  that  in  the  judgment  of  this  very 
deeply  versed  and  able  critic  in  ecclesiastical  antiquities, 
and  "  upon  the  strictest  inquiry,"  Aerius,  if  a  heretic  in 
regard  to  the  point  now  in  hand — the  identity  of  the 
order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  primitive  church 
— was  such  in  very  orthodox  company,  and  even  that 
of  the  canonized  y^/Aer^  and  saints. 

There  is  moreover  one  bearing  of  the  very  cases  which 
Dr.  C.  adduces,  to  which  he  seems  not  to  have  adverted. 
He  himself  shows  sufficiently,  that  presbyters  previously 
to  the  prohibitions  of  the  councils  alluded  to  did  ordain, 
and  did  claim  the  Scriptural  right  to  do  so,  in  virtue  of 
their  order.  Why  else  were  the  ecclesiastical  canons 
made  against  this  practice  ?  Why  else  were  such  ordi- 
nations declared  null,  because  performed  by  presbyters  ? 
The  very  prohibitions  themselves,  (as  well  observed  by 
Dr.  Campbell,)  the  very  assertions  of  those  whom  they 
condemned  as  heretics,  prove  the  practice  then  proba- 
bly wearing,  but  not  quite  worn  out.     There  was  no 

*  Irenicum,  pp.  276,  277. 


106  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

occasion  for  making  canons  against  ordinations  by 
deacons  or  by  laymen,  who  did  not  pretend  to  such  a 
right.  In  deference,  however,  to  the  Apostle  Paul's 
authority,  perhaps  the  bishop  still  admitted,  and  even  re- 
quired the  presbyters  present  to  join  with  him  in  ordain- 
ing a  presbyter  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands  with 
his,  but  not  in  ordaining  a  bishop. 

As  to  the  case  of  the  foimder  of  the  Novatian  sect,  to 
which  Dr.  C.  repeatedly  refers,  it  should  be  understood 
that  the  whole  relation  of  it,  as  contained  in  the  sixty- 
third  chapter  of  the  sixth  book  of  Eusebius,  is  made  up 
of  the  statements  of  Cornelius,  the  successful  rival  and 
bitter  enemy  of  Novatus,  as  his  own  coarse  epithets  and 
vulgar  abuse  plainly  show.  The  usurped  domination 
and  impious  ignorance  of  Cornelius  are  manifest  in 
those  same  letters  of  his  own,  from  which  Eusebius 
makes  his  extracts.  He  coolly  says,  for  instance  : — "  In 
the  roomes  of  the  other  bishops  [that  is,  of  those  who 
had  ordained  Novatus]  we  ordained  and  sent  from  us 
such  as  should  succeed  them."  Not  forsooth,  as  is 
plain  enough,  because  they  were  "  simple  countrymen," 
as  he  represents,  nor  even  because  they  were  "  some- 
what tipsie"  withal,  "  and  well  crammed  with  victuals," 
as  he  also  alleges, — but  hecause  they  had  ordamed 
Novatus. 

Again,  in  the  course  of  the  torrent  of  invectives 
which  he  pours  out  against  this  late  unsuccessful  rival 
in  the  contest  for  the  episcopal  throne  in  that  imperial 
city,  he  suggests  a  doubt,  among  other  things,  whether 
he  had  ever  been  canonically  baptized,  and  that  after- 
ward, at  any  rate,  he  had  not  obtained  confirmation  by 
the  hands  of  the  bishop  ;  on  which  he  gravely  asks 
this  question, — ''  Insomuch  then  as  he  obtained  not 
that,  how  came  he  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ?" 

Mosheim,  on  the  other  hand,  founds  his  relation  of 
the  matter  on  the  authority  both  of  Cornelius  in  Euse- 
bius, and  of  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage.    For  Mosheim 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  107 

represents  that  the  Roman  presbyter  was  named  Nova- 
iian,  who  was  assisted  in  his  enterprise  by  Novatus,  a 
presbyter  of  Carthage,  who  had  come  to  Rome  to 
escape  the  resentment  of  Cyprian,  with  whom  he  was 
highly  at  variance.  So  that  in  reahty  all  the  account 
we  have  of  the  matter  is  from  the  bitter  enemies  if  not 
the  persecutors  of  these  two  presbyters ;  and  consider- 
ing human  nature,  and  the  evidence  which,  alas  !  our 
own  times  afford,  that  men  as  good,  perhaps,  as  some 
even  of  the  Roman  or  Carthaginian  samts,  too  often  fol- 
low its  unrestrained  and  unhallowed  impulses  in  such 
circumstances,  we  ought  perhaps  to  receive  such  state- 
ments with  not  a  few  or  inconsiderable  grains  of  al- 
lowance. 

With  these  preliminary  observations,  I  am  now 
prepared  to  say, — (1,)  that  having  carefully  examined 
the  statements  of  Cornelius  in  Eusebius,  I  am  well 
persuaded  that  they  carry  on  the  face  of  them  conclu- 
sive evidence  that  they  are  the  vindictive  colourings 
of  a  personal  enemy,  and  therefore  not  to  be  adopted 
in  gross  now  without  large  deductions  :  and  (2,)  that 
Novatus  doubtless  desired  episcopal  ordination ;  and 
may  have  even  too  anxiously  sought  it  because  that 
was  then  and  there  the  custom  of  the  church,  and  canon- 
ically  required,  and  consequently,  without  it — in  his 
own  apprehension  at  least — he  was  not  likely  to  suc- 
ceed so  well.  That  bishops  were  then  regarded  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  as  superior  to  presbyters  in  jurisdic- 
tion, and  by  the  ecclesiastical  custom  and  canons,  there 
is  no  doubt.  But  that  they  are  so  jure  divino,  by  divine 
institution,  remained  an  unsettled  question  in  that 
Church,  even  down  to  the  Council  of  Trent  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  as  any  one  may  see  in  the  long  and 
animated  debates  upon  it,  as  related  by  Paul  Sarpi,  the 
very  able  and  interesting  historian  of  that  renowned 
assembly. 


108  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

As  to  Dr.  C.'s  strictures  on  Lord  King,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  follow  him  througii  the  various  items  which  he 
names  in  that  part  of  his  book,  in  which  he  repeats 
often,  as  is  common  with  him,  what  he  had  previously 
affirmed  again  and  again.  In  the  very  outset  of  his 
strictures  he  falls  into  the  fundamental  error  which  logi- 
cians denominate  ignoratio  elenchi,  a  mistake  of  the 
question.  "  Mr.  Wesley  [he  says]  professes  in  his 
letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  &c.,  of  1784,  to  have  founded  his 
belief  of  the  sameness  of  the  office  of  presbyter  and 
bishop  on  the  arguments  of  Lord  King  in  his  Inquiry 
into  the  Constitution,  &c.,  of  the  Primitive  Church."^ 
Now  Mr.  Wesley  says  no  such  thing  ;  he  made  no  such 
profession :  and  this  single  observation,  so  far  as  Mr. 
Wesley  is  concerned,  overthrows  the  whole  of  what 
Dr.  C.  builds  on  this  erroneous  foundation;  the  pure 
fiction  of  his  own  imagination. 

"/ij  omnis  effusus  labor.'''' 

What  Mr.  Wesley  does  say  in  his  letter  "to  Dr. 
Coke,"  &c.,  is  as  follows  :  "  Lord  King's  account  of  the 
primitive  church  convinced  me,  many  years  ago,  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order."  Mark,  the 
same  order,  not  the  same  ojice,  as  Dr.  C.  asserts  of  Mr. 
Wesley's  belief.  The  superiority  of  bishops  in  "  degree ^^ 
or  official  pre-eminence,  though  not  in  essential  sacer- 
dotal order,  is  carefully  and  explicitly  marked  by  Lord 
King  in  many  places  of  his  work,  and  could  not  have 
been  overlooked,  or  intended  to  be  confounded,  by  Mr, 
Wesley.  Dr.  C,  however,  obviously  builds  his  fabric 
on  the  erroneous  assumption  that  both  Lord  King  and 
Mr.  W.  made  no  distinction  between  ministerial  order, 
strictly  taken  in  its  technical  ecclesiastical  sense,  and 
office,  grade,  or  degree,  in  an  order, — as,  for  example, 
archpresbyters  among  presbyters,  or  archdeacons  among 

*Page  150. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  109 

deacons ;  or,  to  repeat  a  civil  illustration,  before  men- 
tioned, as  the  speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons, — 
officially  superior,  and  occupying  the  first  seat,  and  yet 
but  a  commoner  among  commoners. 

That  Dr.  C.  confounds  or  overlooks  this  distinction, 
and  that  his  argument  consequently  does  not  meet  Lord 
King's  main  position,  and  of  course  Mr.  W.'s,  is  plain 
from  several  passages  in  his  strictures,  but  especially 
from  the  following : — "  Lord  King  [he  says]  has  entirely 
passed  over  the  objection  to  his  doctrine  arising  out  of 
the  ordination  of  bishops.  Ordination  to  an  office  con- 
veys the  idea  of  introduction  into  one  which  the  person 
previously  did  not  hold.  If  presbyter  and  bishop  was 
the  same  office,  grade,  or  order,  why  were  presbyters 
ordained  when  they  were  appointed  to  a  bishoprick? 
What  was  the  second  ordination  for  ^"^ 

Here  he  evidently  speaks  of  office,  grade,  or  order 
as  all  one  and  the  same  thing,  and  as  so  treated  in 
Lord  King's  work.  And  yet  nothing  is  plainer  in  the 
express  and  frequently  repeated  language  of  that  author, 
than  that  the  distinction  he  makes  between  order  and 
official  grade  or  degree  is  the  very  groundwork  of  his 
system.  The  question,  therefore,  which  Dr.  C.  so  con- 
fidently asks,  viz.,  "What  was  the  second  ordination 
for?"  is  answered  with  perfect  ease  and  consistency,  on 
the  principles  of  Lord.  King  and  Mr.  W.,  and  equally  on 
those  of  the  polity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Dr.  C.  himself,  indeed,  furnishes  the  answer  to  his  own 
question  ;  and  nothing  can  be  more  appropriate  or  cor- 
rect :  "  Ordination  to  an  office  [he  says]  conveys  the 
idea  of  introduction  into  one  which  the  person  pre- 
viously did  not  hold."^  Exactly  so.  This  is  the  pre- 
cise import  of  ordination  as  understood  by  Lord  K., 
and  also  by  Mr.  W.  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
And  therefore,  while  Lord  K.  explicitly  maintains  the 
primitive  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters  as  to  the 

•Page  176. 


110  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

intrinsic  and  inherent  power  of  order,  he  as  explicitly 
states,  at  the  same  time,  that  when  a  presbyter  was 
advanced  to  the  official  degree  of  bishop — that  is,  ac- 
cording to  Lord  K.,  was  made  the  actual  superintend- 
ent, inspector,  or  overseer  of  any  particular  church,  and 
of  his  fellow  presbyters  (as  well  as  the  deacons)  con- 
nected therewith, — he  was  ordaified  to  that  office  by 
imposition  of  hands  by  the  neighbouring  bishops.  But 
when  he  says  "  by  the  neighbouring  bishops,''  the  reader 
must  not  forget  that  he  still  does  not  at  all  mean  dioce- 
sati  bishops  of  a  distinct  order,  in  Dr.  C.'s  or  the  high 
church  sense ;  but  in  his  own  sense  of  the  term  bishop, 
as  above  described.^  The  same  answer,  furnished  by 
Dr.  C.  himself,  may  very  clearly  explain  to  him  and  to 
all  others  why  it  is  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
which  maintains  the  identity  of  bishop  and  presbyter  as 
to  the  intrinsic  and  inherent  power  of  order,  still  prac- 
tises a  third  ordination,  when  any  of  her  presbyters  are 
advanced  to  the  episcopal  degree.  It  is  exactly  because, 
in  Dr.  C.'s  own  words,  "  ordination  to  an  office  conveys 
the  idea  of  introduction  into  one  which  the  person  pre- 
viously did  not  hold." 

Having  thus  cleared  the  true  idea  both  of  the  order 
and  the  official  degree  of  bishop,  as  held  by  Lord  King, 
by  Mr.  W.,  and  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
the  true  basis  on  which,  in  accordance  with  this  idea, 
an  appropriate  ordination  to  the  episcopal  office  rests,  I 
shall  proceed  to  give  the  reader  a  brief  synopsis  of 
LordK.'s  argumentation  and  deductions  from  the  Chris- 
tian fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries,  to  which  he  con- 
fines his  inquiry  on  the  main  point  in  question,  viz.,  the 
primitive  identity  of  the  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters- 
And  in  the  course  of  it,  I  am  persuaded  the  intelligent  and 
candid  reader  cannot  but  be  as  forcibly  struck  with  the 
modestly  as  with  the  learned  diligence   of  that   distin- 

*  See  his  "  Inquiry  into  the  Constitution,  Discipline,  Unity,  and  Worship 
of  the  Priinitive  Church,"  p.  49. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  Ill 

guished  layman,  whose  authorities  and  logical  deduc- 
tions were  capable  of  producing  so  great  a  change  in 
the  previously  prejudiced  high-church  mind  of  such  a 
man  as  Wesley.  It  will  serve  also  to  show  how  little 
justice  has  been  done  by  Dr.  C.  to  this  main  point  of 
Lord  K.'s  argument.  It  may  be  proper,  first,  however, 
to  apprize  the  reader  that  Lord  King  actually  and  care- 
fully read  and  studied  the  early  fathers  whom  he 
quotes,  and  various  others,  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  ori- 
ginals, and  not  in  translations,  nor  "  hy  the  index,^''  as 
seems  to  be  Dr.  C.'s  plan  of  discovering  passages."^ 

In  his  sixth  chapter.  Lord  King  says :  "  It  wall  be  both 
needless  and  tedious  to  endeavour  to  prove  that  the  an- 
cients generally  mention  presbyters  distinct  from  bishops. 
Every  one,  I  suppose,  will  readily  own  and  acknow- 
ledge it.  The  great  question  which  hath  most  deplo- 
rably sharpened  and  soured  the  minds  of  too  many  is, 
what  the  office  and  order  of  a  presbyter  w^as  :  about  this 
the  world  hath  been  and  still  is  most  uncharitably 
divided  ;  some  equalize  a  presbyter  in  every  thing  with 
a  bishop ;  others  as  much  debase  him ;  each,  according  to 
their  particular  opinions,  either  advance  or  degrade  him. 
In  many  controversies  a  middle  way  hath  been  the 
safest,  perhaps  in  this,  the  medium  between  the  two  ex- 
treams  may  be  the  truest.  Whether  what  I  am  now 
going  to  say  be  the  true  state  of  the  matter,  I  leave 
to  the  learned  reader  to  determin ;  I  may  be  deceived, 
— neither  mine  years  nor  abilities  exempt  me  from  mis- 
takes and  en-ors ;  but  this  I  must  needs  say.  That  after 
the  most  diligent  researches  and  impartialest  inquiries, 
the  following  notion  seems  to  me  most  plausible,  and 
most  consentaneous  to  truth  :  and  which,  with  a  great 
facility  and  clearness,  solves  those  doubts  and  objec- 
tions which,  according  to  those  other  hypotheses,  I 
know  not  how  to  answer.  But  yet,  however,  I  am  not 
so  wedded  and  bigoted  to  this  opmion,  but  if  any  shall 

*Page  161. 


112  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

produce  better  and  more  convincing-  arguments  to  the 
contrary,  I  will  not  contentiously  defend,  but  readily 
relinquish  it ;  since  I  search  after  truth,  not  to  pro- 
mote a  particular  party  or  interest. 

"  Now  for  the  better  explication  of  this  point,  I  shall 
first  lay  down  a  definition  and  description  of  a  presbyter, 
and  then  prove  the  parts  thereof. 

*'  Now^  the  definition  of  a  presbyter  may  be  this  : — 
A  person  in  holy  orders^  having  thereby  an  inherent  right 
to  perform  the  whole  office  of  a  bishop ;  hit  being  pos- 
sessed of  710  place  or  parish,  not  actually  discharging  it, 
without  the  permission  and  consent  of  the  bishop  of  a  place 
or  parish. 

"  But  lest  this  definition  should  seem  obscure,  I  shall 
illustrate  it  by  this  following  instance :  As  a  curate 
hath  the  same  mission  and  power  with  the  minister 
whose  place  he  supplies,  yet  being  not  the  minister  of 
that  place,  he  cannot  perform  there  any  acts  of  his 
ministerial  function  w^ithout  leave  from  the  minister 
thereof;  so  a  presbyter  had  the  same  order  and  power 
with  a  bishop,  whom  he  assisted  in  his  cure  ;  yet  being 
not  the  bishop  or  minister  of  that  cure,  he  could  not 
there  perform  any  parts  of  his  pastoral  office,  without 
the  permission  of  the  bishop  thereof:  so  that  what  we 
generally  render  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  would  be 
more  intelligible  in  our  tongue  if  we  did  express  it  by 
rectors,  vicars,  and  deacons, — by  rectors  understanding 
the  bishops,  and  by  vicars  the  presbyters ;  the  former 
being  the  actual  incumbents  of  a  place,  and  the  latter 
curates  or  assistants,  and  so  different  in  degree  but 
yet  equal  in  order. 

"  Now  this  is  what  I  understand  by  a  presbyter ;  for 
the  confirmation  of  which  these  two  things  are  to  be 
proved  : 

"  I.  That  the  presbyters  were  the  bishops'  curates 
and  assistants,  and  so  inferiour  to  them  in  the  actual 
exercise  of  their  ecclesiastical  commission. 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  113 

"  II.  That  yet,  notwithstanding,  they  had  the  same 
inherent  right  with  the  bishops,  and  so  were  not  of  a 
distinct  specific  order  from  them.    Or,  more  briefly,  thus, 

"1.  That  the  presbyters  were  different  from  the 
bishops  in  gradu,  or  in  degree  ;  but  yet, 

"  2.  They  were  equal  to  them  in  ordine^  or  in  order. 

''  As  to  the  first  of  these,  that  presbyters  were  but  the 
bishops'  curates  and  assistants,  inferior  to  them  in  de- 
gree, or  in  the  actual  discharge  of  their  ecclesiastical 
commission ;  this  will  appear  to  have  been  in  effect 
already  proved,  if  we  recollect  what  has  been  asserted 
touching  the  bishop  and  his  office  : — that  there  was  but 
one  bishop  in  a  church ;  that  he  usually  performed  all 
the  parts  of  divine  service  ;  that  he  was  the  general  dis- 
poser and  manager  of  all  things  within  his  diocess, 
there  being  nothing:  done  there  without  his  consent  and 
approbation.""^ 

He  then  specifies  the  various  particulars  of  ministe- 
rial functions  which  a  presbyter  could  not  perform  with- 
out the  bishop's  leave ;  adding  at  the  close  : — "  But 
what  need  I  reckon  up  particulars,  when  in  general 
there  was  no  ecclesiastical  oflace  performed  by  the 
presbyters  without  the  consent  and  permission  of  the 
bishop."t 

Having  cited  his  authorities  for  these  statements,  he 
afterward  thus  proceeds  : — 

"  So  then  in  this  sense  a  presbyter  was  inferior  to  a 
bishop  in  degree,  in  that,  having  no  parish  of  his  own, 
he  could  not  actually  discharge  the  particular  acts  of 
his  ministerial  function  without  leave  from  the  bishop 
of  a  parish  or  diocess.  The  bishops  were  superior  to  the 
presbyters  in  that  they  were  the  presented,  instituted, 
and  inducted  ministers  of  their  respective  parishes  ;  and 
the  presbyters  were  inferior  to  the  bishops  in  that  they 
were  but  their  curates  and  assistants. 

*  Inquiry,  &c.,  pp.  52-55.  f  ^^S^  56. 


114  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

*'  §  3.  But  though  the  presbyters  were  thus  different 
from  the  bishops  in  degree,  yet  they  were  of  the  very 
same  specific  order  with  them  ;  having  the  same  inhe- 
rent right  to  perform  those  ecclesiastical  offices  which  the 
bishop  did,  as  will  appear  from  these  three  arguments : 

"  1,  That  by  the  bishop's  permission  they  discharged 
all  those  offices  which  a  bishop  did  : — 2,  that  they  were 
called  by  the  same  titles  and  appellations  as  the  bishops 
were  : — and,  3,  that  they  are  expressly  said  to  be  of  the 
same  order  with  the  bishops.  As  to  the  first  of  these, 
That  by  the  bishop's  permission  they  discharged  all 
those  otHces  which  a  bishop  did, — this  will  appear  from 
that, 

"  1.  When  the  bishop  ordered  them  they  preached 
Thus  Origen,  in  the  beginning  of  some  of  his  sermons, 
tells  us  that  he  was  commanded  thereunto  by  the  bishop, 
as  particularly  when  he  preached  about  the  witch  of 
Efidor,  he  says,  The  bishop  commanded  him  to  do  it. 

"  2.  By  the  permission  of  the  bishop  presbyters  bap- 
tized. Thus  writes  Tertullian, —  The  bishop  has  the 
right  of  baptizing,  and  then  the  presbyters,  but  not  with- 
out his  have. 

"  3.  By  the  leave  of  the  bishop  presbyters  adminis- 
tered the  eucharist,  as  must  be  supposed  in  that  saying 
of  Ignatius,  '  That  that  eucharist  only  was  valid  which 
was  celebrated  by  the  bishop,  or  by  one  a]:>pointed 
by  him,  and  that  the  eucharist  could  not  be  delivered 
but  by  the  bishop,  or  by  one  whom  he  did  approve.' 

"  4.  The  presbyters  ruled  in  those  churches  to  which 
they  belonged, — else  this  exhortation  of  Polycarpus  to 
the  presbyters  of  Philippi  would  have  been  in  vain : 
*  Let  the  presbyters  be  tender  and  merciful,  compassion- 
ate towards  all,  reducing  those  that  are  in  errors,  visiting 
all  that  are  weak,  not  negligent  of  the  widow  and  the 
orphan,  and  him-  that  is  poor,  but  ever  providing  what 
is  honest  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man,  abstaining  from 

all  wrath,  respect  of  persons,   and  imrighteous  judg- 

8-^ 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  115 

ment,  being  far  from  covetousness,  not  hastily  believing 
a  report  against  any  man,  not  rigid  in  judgment,  know- 
ing that  we  are  all  faulty  and  obnoxious  to  judgment.' 
Hence, 

"  5.  They  presided  in  church  consistories,  together 
with  the  bishop,  and  composed  the  executive  part  of 
the  ecclesiastical  court,  from  whence  it  was  called  the 
presbyteiij,  because  in  it,  as  Tertullian  says,  '  Approved 
elders  did  preside.' 

"  6.  Tliey  had  also  the  power  of  excommunication,  as 
Rogatianus  and  Numidicus,  two  presbyters  of  Cyprian's 
church,  by  his  order  joined  with  some  bishops  of  his 
nomination  in  the  excommunication  of  certain  schisma- 
tics of  his  diocess.  But  of  both  these  two  heads  more 
will  be  spoken  in  another  place. 

''  7.  Presbyters  restored  returning  penitents  to  the 
church's  peace.  Thus  we  read,  in  an  epistle  of  Diony- 
sius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  that  a  certain  offender 
called  Serapion,  approaching  to  the  time  of  his  dissolu- 
tion, '  sent  for  one  of  the  presbyters  to  absolve  him,  which 
the  presbyter  did  according  to  the  order  of  his  bishop, 
who  had  before  commanded  that  the  presbyters  should 
absolve  those  who  were  in  danger  of  death.' 

"  8.  Presbyters  confirmed,  as  we  shall  most  evi- 
dently prove  when  we  come  to  treat  of  confirmation, 
only  remark  here  by  the  way,  that  in  the  days  of 
Cyprian  there  was  a  hot  controversy  whether  those  that 
were  baptized  by  heretics,  and  came  over  to  the  catholic 
church,  should  be  received  as  members  thereof  by  bap- 
tism and  confirmation,  or  by  confirmation  alone.  Now 
I  would  fain  know,  whether,  during  the  vacancy  of  a 
see,  or  the  bishop's  absence,  which  sometimes  might  be 
very  long,  as  Cyprian  was  absent  two  years,  a  presby- 
ter could  not  admit  a  returning  heretic  to  the  peace  and 
unity  of  the  church,  especially  if  we  consider  their  posi- 
tive damnation  of  all  those  that  died  out  of  the  church. 
If  the  presbyters  had  not  had  this  power  of  confirmation, 
many  penitent  souls  must  have  been  damned  for  the 


116  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVEKSY  REVIEWED. 

unavoidable  default  of  a  bishop,  which  is  too  cruel  and 
unjust  to  imagine. 

"9.  As  for  ordination,  I  find  but  little  said  of  this  in  an- 
tiquity ;  yet,  as  little  as  there  is,  there  are  clearer  proofs 
of  the  presbyters  ordaining,  than  there  are  of  their  ad- 
ministering the  Lord's  supper.  '  All  power  and  grace,' 
saith  Firmilian,  '  is  constituted  in  the  church,  where 
seniors  preside,  who  have  the  power  of  baptizing,  con- 
firming, and  ordaining;'  or,  as  it  may  be  rendered,  and 
perhaps  more  agreeable  to  the  sense  of  the  place, — 
'  who  had  the  power  as  of  baptizing,  so  also  of  confirm- 
ing and  ordaining.'  What  these  seniors  were  will  be 
best  understood  by  a  parallel  place  in  Tertullian ;  for 
that  place  in  Tertullian  and  this  in  Firmilian  are  usually 
cited  to  expound  one  another  by  most  learned  men,  as 
the  most  learned  Dr.  Cave  and  others.  Now  the  pas- 
sage in  Tertullian  is  this, — '  In  the  ecclesiastical  courts 
approved  elders  preside.'  Now  by  these  approved  elders 
bishops  and  presbyters  must  necessarily  be  understood. 
Because  Tertullian  speaks  here  of  the  discipline  ex- 
erted in  one  particular  church  or  parish,  in  which  there 
•was  but  one  bishop  ;  and  if  only  he  had  presided,  then 
there  could  not  have  been  elders  in  the  plural  number  ; 
but  there  being  many  elders  to  make  out  their  number, 
we  must  add  the  presbyters  to  the  bishop,  who  also 
presided  with  him,  as  we  shall  more  fully  show  in  an- 
other place.  Now  the  same  that  presided  in  church 
consistories,  the  same  also  ordained.  Presbyters  as  well 
as  bishops  presided  in  church  consistories,  therefore  pres- 
byters as  well  as  bishops  ordained.  And  as  in  those 
churches  where  there  were  presbyters,  both  they  and 
the  bishop  presided  together,  so  also  they  ordained  to- 
gether, both  laying  on  their  hands  in  ordination  ;  as  St. 
Timothy  was  ordained  '  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery :'  that  is,  by  the  hands  of  the  bishop  and 
presbyters  of  that  parish  where  he  was  ordained, — as  is 
the  constant  signification  of  the  \n oTdi^  p7'eshytery  in  all 
the  writings  of  the  ancients.     But, 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  117 

"  10.  Though  as  to  every  particular  act  of  the  bi- 
shop's office,  it  could  not  be  proved  particularly  that 
a  presbyter  did  discharge  them ;  yet  it  would  be  suf- 
ficient if  we  could  prove  that  in  the  general  a  pres- 
byter could  and  did  perform  them  all. — Now  that  a 
presbyter  could  do  so,  and  consequently,  by  the  bishop's 
permission,  did  do  so,  will  appear  from  the  example 
of  the  great  St.  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  who, 
being  exiled  from  his  church,  writes  a  letter  to  the 
clergy  thereof,  wherein  he  exhorts  and  begs  them  '  to 
discharge  their  own  and  his  office  too,  that  so  nothing 
might  be  wanting  either  to  discipline  or  diligence.' 
And  much  to  the  same  effect  he  thus  writes  them  in 
another  letter,  Trusting,  therefore,  to  your  kindness  and 
religion,  which  I  have  abundantly  experienced,  I  exhort 
and  command  you  by  these  letters,  that  in  my  stead  you 
perform  those  offices  which  the  ecclesiastical  dispe?isation 
requires.  And  in  a  letter  written  upon  the  same  occa- 
sion by  the  clergy  of  the  church  of  Rome  to  the  clergy 
of  the  church  of  Carthage,  we  find  these  words  toward 
the  beginning  thereof:  And  since  it  is  incumbent  2ip on 
us,  who  are  as  it  were  bishops,  to  keep  the  flock  iti  the  room 
of  the  pastor :  if  we  shall  be  found  negligent,  it  shall  be 
said  unto  us  as  it  was  said  to  our  careless  preceding  bishops, 
in  Ezekie]  xxxiv,  3,  4,  that  we  looked  ?iot  after  that  which 
was  lost,  7ve  did  not  correct  him  that  wandered,  nor  bound 
up  him  that  was  lame,  but  we  did  eat  their  milk  and  were 
covered  with  their  wool.  So  that  the  presbyters  were, 
as  it  were,  bishops,  that  in  the  bishop's  absence  kept  his 
flock,  and  in  his  stead  performed  all  those  ecclesiastical 
offices  which  were  incumbent  on  him. 

"  Now  then,  if  the  presbyters  could  supply  the  place 
of  an  absent  bishop,  and  in  general  discharge  all  those 
offices  to  which  a  bishop  had  been  obliged  if  he  had 
been  present,  it  naturally  follows  that  the  presbyters 
could  discharge  every  particular  act  and  part  thereof 
If  I  should   say,  such   an  one  has  all  the  senses  of  a 


118  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

man,  and  yet  also  assert  that  he  cannot  see,  I  should 
be  judged  a  self-contradictor  in  that  assertion;  for  in 
affirming  that  he  had  all  the  human  senses,  I  also  af- 
firmed that  he  saw,  because  seeing-  is  one  of  those 
senses, — for  whatsoever  is  affirmed  of  an  universal,  is 
affirmed  of  every  one  of  its  particulars.  So  when  the 
fathers  say  that  the  presbyters  performed  the  whole 
office  of  the  bishop,  it  naturally  ensues  that  they  con- 
firmed, ordained,  baptized,  &c.,  because  those  are  par- 
ticulars of  that  universal. 

"  But  now,  from  the  whole,  we  may  collect  a  solid 
argument  for  the  equality  of  presbyters  with  bishops, 
as  to  order;  for  if  a  presbyter  did  all  a  bishop  did,  what 
difference  was  there  between  them  ?  A  bishop  preached^ 
baptized,  and  confirmed  ;  so  did  a  presbyter.  A  bishop 
excommunicated,  absolved,  and  ordained  ;  so  did  a  pres- 
byter. Whatever  a  bishop  the  same  did  a  presbyter. 
The  particular  acts  of  their  office  were  the  same ;  the 
only  difference  that  was  between  them  was  in  degree, 
— but  this  proves  there  was  none  at  all  in  order. 

"  That  bishops  and  presbyters  were  of  the  same 
order  appears  also  from  that  originally  they  had  one 
and  the  same  name,  each  of  them  being  indifferently 
called  bishops  or  presbyters.  Hence  we  read  in  the 
Sacred  Writ  of  several  bishops  in  one  particular  church, 
as  the  bishops  of  Ephesus  and  Philippi,  that  is,  the 
bishops  and  presbyters  of  those  churches,  as  they  were 
afterward  distinctly  called.  And  Clemens  Romanus 
sometimes  mentions  many  bishops  in  the  church  of  Co- 
rinth whom  at  other  times  ho  calls  by  the  name  of  pres- 
byters, using  those  two  terms  as  synonymous  titles  and 
appellations.  '  You  have  obeyed,''  saith  he,  '  those  that 
were  set  over  you,  roic  r/yov/ievoic  v/juv,  and  let  us  revere  those 
that  are  set  over  us,''  nfyonyovfievovc  rmuv,  which  are  the  usual 
titles  of  the  bishops ;  and  yet  these  in  another  place 
he  calls  presbyters,  describing  their  office  by  their  sitting 
or  presiding  over  us.  Wherefore  he  commands  the  Co- 
rinthians to  be  subject  to  their  presbyters,  and  whom  in 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  119 

one  line  he  calls  emaKonoi,  or  bishops ;  the  second  line 
after  he  calls  npeapvrepoi,  or  presbyters.  So  Poly  carp 
exhorts  the  Philippians  to  he  subject  to  their  presbyters 
(md  deacons, — under  the  name  of  presbyters  including 
both  bishops  and  priests,  as  we  now  call  them. 

"  The  first  that  expressed  these  church  officers  by 
the  distinct  terms  of  bishops  and  presbyters  was  Igna- 
tius, who  lived  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century, 
appropriathig  the  title  of  bishop,  sTna-Konog,  or  overseer,  to 
that  minister  who  was  the  more  immediate  overseer  and 
governor  of  his  ])arish ;  and  that  of  TvpeapvTepoc,  elder  or 
presbyter,  to  him  who  had  no  particular  care  and  in- 
spection of  a  parish,  but  was  only  an  assistant  or  curate 
to  a  bishop  that  had  :  the  word  etvlgkottoc,  or  bishop,  de- 
noting a  relation  to  a  flock  or  cure ;  TzpEaidwepoc,  or  pres- 
byter, signifying  only  a  power  or  ability  to  take  the 
charge  of  such  a  flock  or  cure, — the  former  implying 
an  actual  discharge  of  the  office,  the  latter  a  power  so 
to  do. 

"  This  distinction  of  titles,  arising  from  the  difference 
of  their  circumstances,  which  we  find  first  mentioned 
in  Ignatius,  was  generally  followed  by  the  succeeding 
fathers,  who  for  the  most  part  distinguish  between, 
bishops  and  presbyters,  though  sometimes,  according  to 
the  primitive  usage,  they  indifferently  apply  those  terms 
to  each  of  those  persons.  Thus,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
titles  of  presbyters  are  given  unto  bishops,  as  Irenaeus 
in  his  synodical  epistle  twice  calls  Anicetus,  Pius,  Higy- 
nus,  Telesphorus,  and  Sixtus,  bishops  of  Rome,  trpeaQvTepoi, 
or  presbyters.  And  those  bishops  who  derived  their 
succession  immediately  from  the  apostles  he  calls  the 
presbyters  in  the  church :  and  whom  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  in  one  line  calls  the  bishop  of  a  certain  city  not 
far  from  Ephesus,  a  few  lines  after  he  calls  the  pres- 
byter. And  on  the  other  hand,  the  titles  of  bishops  are 
ascribed  to  presbyters,  as  one  of  the  discretive  appella- 
tions of  a  bishop  is  pastor.     Yet  Cyprian  also  calls  his 


120  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

presbyters  the  pastors  of  the  flock.  Another  was  that 
of  president,  or  one  set  over  the  people.  Yet  Cyprian 
also  calls  his  presbyters  presidents,  or  set  over  the  peo- 
ple. The  bishops  were  also  called  rectors  or  rulers  : 
so  Origen  calls  the  presbyters  the  go-vernors  of  the 
people.  And  we  find  both  bishops  and  presbyters  in- 
cluded under  the  common  name  of  presidents  or  prelates 
by  St.  Cyprian,  in  this  his  exhortation  to  Poraponius. 
'And  if  all  must  observe  the  divine  discipline,  how  much 
more  must  the  presidents  and  deacons  do  it,  who  by 
their  conversation  and  manners  must  yield  a  good  ex- 
ample to  others?'  Now  if  the  same  appellation  of  a 
thing  be  a  good  proof  for  the  identity  of  its  nature,  then 
bishops  and  presbyters  must  be  of  the  same  order,  be- 
cause they  had  the  same  names  and  titles.  Suppose  it 
was--  disputed  whether  a  parson  and  lecturer  were  of  the 
same  order,  would  not  this  sufficiently  prove  the  affirm- 
ative ?  That  though  for  some  accidental  respects  they 
might  be  distinguished  in  their  appellations,  yet  origin- 
ally and  frequently  they  were  called  by  one  and  the 
same  name.  The  same  it  is  in  this  case,  though  for 
some  contingent  and  adventitious  reasons,  bishops  and 
presbyters  were  discriminated  in  their  titles,  yet  origin- 
ally they  were  always,  and  afterward  sometimes,  called 
by  one  and  the  same  appellation,  and  therefore  we  may 
justly  deem  them  to  be  one  and  the  same  order.  But 
if  this  reason  be  not  thought  cogent  enough,  the  third 
and  last  will  unquestionably  put  all  out  of  doubt,  and 
most  clearly  evince  the  identity  or  sameness  of  bishops 
and  presbyters  as  to  order.  And  that  is,  that  it  is  ex- 
pressly said  by  the  ancients  that  there  were  but  two 
distinct  ecclesiastical  orders,  viz.,  bishops  and  deacons, 
or  presbyters  and  deacons  ;  and  if  there  were  but  these 
two,  presbyters  cannot  be  distinct  from  bishops,  for  then 
there  would  be  three. 

"  Now  tliat  there  were  but  two  orders,  viz.,  bishops 
and  deacons,  is  plain  from  that  golden  ancient  remain  of 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  121 

Clemens  Rom  anus,  wherein  he  thus  writes  : — '  In  the 
country  and  cities  where  the  apostles  preached,  they 
ordained  their  first  converts  for  bishops  and  deacons 
over  those  who  should  believe.  Nor  were  .these  orders 
new,  for,  for  many  ages  past  it  was  thus  prophesied 
concerning  bishops  and  deacons :  I  will  appoint  their 
bishops  in  righteousness,  and  their  deacons  in  faith.' 
This  place  of  Scripture  which  is  here  quoted  is  in  Isa. 
Ix,  17.  *I  will  make  thine  officers  peace  and  thine  ex- 
actors righteousness.'  Whether  it  is  rightly  applied, 
is  not  my  business  to  determine.  That  that  I  observe 
from  hence  is,  that  there  were  but  two  orders  instituted  by 
the  apostles,  viz.,  bishops  and  deacons,  which  Clemens 
supposes  were  prophetically  promised  long  before."^ 

He  then  quotes  a  farther  passage  from  the  same  epis- 
tle of  Clemens  to  the  Corinthians,  the  object  of  which 
was  to  dissuade  an  unruly  faction  in  that  church  from  a 
design  which  they  entertained  of  deposing  their  pres- 
byters. The  great  argument  of  Clemens  to  this  end 
was,  that  they  ought  rather  to  obey  their  presbyters, 
and  to  desist  from  their  disorderly  proceedings  against 
them,  because  the  institution  and  succession  of  bishops 
and  deacons  was  from  the  apostles  themselves,  which, 
continues  Lord  K.,  "  clearly  evinces  that  presbyters 
were  included  under  the  title  of  bishops,  or  rather,  that 
they  w^ere  bishops.  For  to  what  end  should  Clemens 
exhort  the  schismatical  Corinthians  to  obey  their  pres- 
byters, from  the  consideration  of  the  apostles'  ordina- 
tion of  bishops,  if  their  presbyters  had  not  been  bishops? 
But  that  the  order  of  presbyters  was  the  same  with  the 
order  of  bishops,  will  appear  also  from  that  place  of  Ire- 
nseus,  where  he  exhorts  us  '  to  withdraw  from  those  pres- 
byters who  serve  their  lusts,  and,  having  not  the  fear  of 
God  in  their  hearts,  contonm  others,  and  arc  lifted  up  with 
the  dignity  of  their  first  session  ;  but  to  adhere  to  those 

•  Inquiry,  &c.,  p.  57-69. 


122  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

who  keep  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  and  with  their 
presbyterial  order  are  inoffensive  and  exemplary  in 
sound  doctrine  and  a  holy  conversation,  to  the  inform- 
ation and  correction  of  others  ;  for  such  presbyters  the 
church  educates,  and  of  whom  the  prophet  saith,  I  will 
give  thee  princes  in  peace,  and  bishops  in  rig-hteousness.' 

"Now  that  by  these  presbyters  bishops  are  meant, 
I  need  not  take  much  pains  to  prove ;  the  precedent 
chapter  positively  asserts  it,  the  description  of  them  in 
this  quotation,  by  their  enjoying  the  dignity  of  the  first 
session,  and  the  application  of  that  text  of  Isaiah  unto 
them,  clearly  evinces  it.  No  one  can  deny  but  that 
they  were  bishops,  that  is,  that  they  were  superior  in 
degree  to  other  presbyters,  or,  as  Irenseus  styles  it, 
honoured  with  the  first  session;  but  yet  he  also  says 
that  they  were  not  different  in  order,  being  of  the  pres- 
byterial order,  which  includes  both  bishops  and  pres- 
byters."^ 

After  quoting  next  a  passage  from  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  in  proof  or  illustration  of  the  same  point,  he  thus 
proceeds : — 

"  So  that  there  were  only  the  two  orders  of  deacons 
and  presbyters,  the  former  whereof  being  the  inferior 
order,  never  sat  at  their  ecclesiastical  conventions,  but, 
like  servants,  stood  and  waited  on  the  latter,  who  sat 
down  on  Qpovoi,  or  seats  in  the  form  of  a  semicircle,  whence 
they  are  frequently  called  consessus  presbyterii,  or  the 
session  of  the  presbytery,  in  which  session  he  that  was 
more  peculiarly  the  bishop  or  minister  of  the  parish  sat 
at  the  head  of  the  semicircle  on  a  seat  somewhat  ele- 
vated above  those  of  '  his  colleagues,'  as  Cyprian  calls 
them  ;  and  so  was  distinguished  from  them  by  his  pri- 
ority in  the  same  order,  but  not  by  his  being  of  another 
order.  Thus  the  foresaid  Clemens  Alexandrinus  dis- 
tinguishes the  bishop  from  the  presbyters  by  his  being 

*  Inquiry,  pp.  71,  72. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  123 

advanced  to  the  rpwro/ca^aJpta,  or  the  first  seat  in  the  presby- 
tery, not  by  his  sitting  in  a  different  seat  from  them. — 
For  he  thus  writes,  '  He  is  in  truth  a  presbyter  of  the 
church  and  a  minister  of  the  will  of  God,  who  does  and 
teaches  the  things  of  the  Lord,  not  ordained  by  men  or 
esteemed  just  because  a  presbyter,  but  because  just, 
therefore  received  into  the  presbytery, — who,  although 
he  be  not  honoured  with  the  first  seat  on  earth,  yet  shall 
hereafter  sit  down  on  the  twenty  and  four  thrones  men- 
tioned in  the  Revelations,  judging  the  people.'  So  that 
both  bishops  and  presbyters  were  members  of  the  same 
presbytery,  only  the  bishop  was  advanced  to  the  first 
and  chiefest  seat  therein, — which  is  the  very  same  with 
what  I  come  now  from  proving,  viz.,  that  bishops  and 
presbyters  were  equal  in  order  but  different  in  degree : 
that  the  former  were  ministers  of  their  respective  pa- 
rishes, and  the  latter  their  curates  or  assistants. 

"  Whether  this  hath  been  fully  proved,  or  whether  the 
precedent  quotations  do  naturally  conclude  the  premises, 
the  learned  reader  will  easily  determine.  I  am  not  con- 
scious that  I  have  stretched  any  w^ords  beyond  their  natu- 
ral signification  ;  having  deduced  from  them  nothing  but 
what  they  fairly  imported.  If  I  am  mistaken  I  hope  I 
shall  be  pardoned,  since  I  did  it  not  designedly  or  volun- 
tarily. As  before,  so  now  I  profess  again,  that  if  any  one 
shall  be  so  kind  and  oblio;inor  to  ffive  me  better  informa- 
tion,  I  shall  thankfully  and  willingly  acknowledge  and 
quit  mine  error;  but  till  that  information  be  given,  and  the 
falsity  of  my  present  opinion  be  evinced,  (which  after 
the  impartialest  and  narrowest  inquiry  I  see  not  how 
it  can  be  done,)  I  hope  no  one  will  be  offended  that  I 
have  asserted  the  equality  or  identity  of  the  bishops 
and  presbyters  as  to  order,  and  their  difference  as  to 
pre-eminency  or  degree. 

"  ^  4.  Now  from  this  notion  of  presbyters  there  evi- 
dently results  the  reason  why  there  were  many  of  them 
in  one  church,  even  for  the  same  intent  and  end,  though 


124  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

more  necessary  and  needful,  that  curates  are  now  to 
those  ministers  and  incumbents  whom  they  serve,  it  was 
found  by  experience  that  variety  of  accidents  and  cir- 
cumstances did  frequently  occur  both  in  times  of  peace 
and  persecution,  the  particulars  whereof  would  be 
needless  to  enumerate,  that  disabled  the  bishops  from 
attending  on,  and  discharging  their  pastoral  office ; 
therefore  that  such  vacancies  might  be  supplied,  and 
such  inconveniences  remedied,  they  entertained  pres- 
byters or  curates,  wdio  during  their  absence  might  sup- 
ply their  places,  who  also  were  helpful  to  them  whilst 
they  were  present  with  their  flocks,  to  counsel  and  ad- 
vise them.  Whence  Bishop  Cyprian  assures  us  that  he 
did  all  things  by  the  common  counsel  of  his  presbyters. 

"Besides  this,  in  those  early  days  of  Christianity, 
churches  were  in  most  places  thin,  and  at  great  dis- 
tances from  one  another ;  so  that  if  a  bishop  by  any 
disaster  was  incapacitated  for  the  discharge  of  his  func- 
tion, it  would  be  very  difficult  to  get  a  neighbouring 
bishop  to  assist  him.  To  which  w^e  may  also  add,  that 
in  those  times  there  were  no  public  schools  or  univer- 
sities, except  we  say  the  catechetic  lecture  at  Alexan- 
dria was  one  for  the  breeding  of  young  ministers,  who 
might  succeed  the  bishops  as  they  died ;  wherefore  the 
bishops  of  every  church  took  care  to  instruct  and  ele- 
vate some  young  men,  who  might  be  prepared  to  come 
in  their  place  when  they  were  dead  and  gone.  And 
thus,  for  these  and  the  like  reasons,  most  churches  were 
furnished  with  a  competent  number  of  presbyters,  who 
helped  the  bishops  while  living,  and  were  fitted  to  suc- 
ceed them  when  dead.""^ 

Into  the  next  sentiment  advanced  by  Lord  King,  he 
seems  to  have  been  led  by  an  erroneous  reading  of  a 
passage  in  the  edition  of  Tertullian's  works  which  he 
used,  and  Mhich  I  find  corrected  in  one  of  Dr.  Camp- 

*  Inquiry,  pp.  74-77, 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  125 

bell's  lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  121.  The 
passage  as  quoted  by  Lord  K.  is, — "  Ubi  ecclesiastici 
ordinis  non  est  consessus,  et  offert,  et  tingit  sacerdos, 
qui  est  ibi  solus."  Exhort,  ad  Caslitat.  p.  457.  And  from 
it  he  deduces  the  sentiment  that  although  most  churches 
were  furnished  with  presbyters,  yet  that  this  was  not 
essential ;  a  bishop  being  sufficient,  &c.  Dr.  Campbell 
says  a  bishop  and  "  some  deacons."  The  latter  is  not 
added  by  Lord  King,  but  Dr.  Campbell  shall  speak  for 
himself 

"  Some  have  inferred  from  a  passage  of  Tertullian 
that,  however  general  the  practice  w^as  in  the  second 
and  subsequent  centuries,  of  settling  in  every  church 
all  the  three  orders  above  explained,  it  was  not  uni- 
versal ;  that  in  parishes  where  there  were  but  a  few 
Christians  remotely  situated  from  other  churches,  it 
was  judged  sufficient  to  give  them  a  pastor  or  bishop 
only  and  some  deacons.  The  presbyter  then  being 
but  a  sort  of  assistant  to  the  bishop,  might  not,  in  very 
small  charges,  be  judged  necessary.  The  thing  is  not 
in  itself  improbable,  and  the  authority  above-mentioned, 
before  I  had  examined  it  or  seen  a  more  accurate  edi- 
tion, led  me  to  conclude  it  real.  But  on  examination  I 
find  that  what  had  drawn  me  and  others  into  this  opinion 
was  no  more  than  a  false  reading  of  a  sentence  quoted 
in  a  former  lecture.  In  some  editions  of  Tertullian  we 
read,  {De Exhort.  Cast.,)  'Ubi  ecclesiastici  ornis  non  est 
consessus,  et  offert,  et  tinguit,  sacerdos  qui  est  ibi 
solus.'  I  need  not  urge  that  the  expression  is  quite 
different  in  all  the  best  manuscripts  and  most  correct 
editions :  this  being  one  of  those  glaring  corruptions 
which,  after  a  careful  perusal,  betray  themselves  to  an 
attentive  reader  of  any  penetration.  The  words,  as  I 
have  now  transcribed  them,  considered  in  connection 
with  the  subject  treated  in  the  context,  have  neither 
sense  nor  coherence  in  them,  whereas,  nothing  can  be 
more  apposite  to  the  author's  argument  than  they  are  in 


126  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

the  way  formerly  quoted,  '  Ubi  ecclesiastici  ordinis  non 
est  consessus,  et  offers,  et  tinguis,  et  sacerdos  es  tibi 
solus.'  So  sensible  of  this  were  the  two  learned  critics 
Petavius  and  Dodwell,  that  though  both  were  violently 
disposed,  in  their  different  ways,  to  pervert  the  meaning, 
neither  thought  proper  to  avail  himself  of  a  variation  in 
the  reading  which  would  have  removed  at  once  what  to 
them  was  a  great  stumbling-block.  It  is  indeed  a  read- 
ing which  savours  more  of  art  than  of  negligence,  and 
has  much  the  appearance  of  those  inquisitorial  correc- 
tions which  were  made  on  several  ancient  books  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  especially  those  published  in  the 
papal  dominions,  or  where  the  holy  office  was  esta- 
blished, in  order  to  adapt  the  ancient  doctrine  to  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  day.  Now  nothing  could  be  more 
opposite  to  this,  than  what  seemed  to  admit  that  any 
necessity  or  exigence  whatever  could  entitle  a  layman 
to  exercise  the  function  of  a  priest.""^ 

A  few  miscellaneous  specimens  of  Dr.  C.'s  criticisms 
on  Lord  K.  shall  conclude  my  notice  of  this  part  of  his 
book. 

"  As  for  the  word  diocess,  [says  Lord  K.,]  by  which 
the  bishop's  flock  is  now  usually  expressed,  I  do  not 
remember  that  ever  I  found  it  used  in  this  sense  by  any 
of  the  ancients."!  On  this  passage  Dr.  C.  remarks  as 
follows : — "  Socrates,  however,  who  lived  in  the  fourth 
century,  in  his  account  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
says  they  decreed  that  the  bishop  of  a  diocess,  dioscesis, 
should  not  pass  (be  translated)  to  another  church. — 
The  word  occurs  twice  more  within  the  compass  of  a 
page.  It  is  evident  from  its  being  used  in  the  wording 
of  a  law  or  canon  that  it  was  common  and  well  under- 
stood."t 

The  Council  of  Constantinople  was  held  about  fifteen 
years  before  the  close  of  the  fourth  century ;  and  So- 

•Lect.  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  pp.  121,  122.    flnquiry,  p.  15.   $Page  153. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  127 

crates  consequently  must  have  written  still  later.  Dr.  C. 
knew  that  Lord  K.'s  inquiry  was  expressly  confined  to 
the  writers  of  the  ^7*5^  three  centuries.  Yet  he  says  that 
a  word  which  Lord  K.  did  not  remember  to  have  seen, 
in  the  sense  mentioned,  in  any  writer  of  the  first  three 
centuries,  may  be  found  in  three  instances  in  a  writer 
nearly  a  hundred  years  later ;  and  he  infers  from  its 
being  once  used  in  a  law  about  that  time,  that  it  was 
then  common  and  well  understood.  Does  this,  were  it 
even  so,  disprove  any  thing  that  Lord  K.  had  said  ? 

One  of  Lord  King's  sentiments  was,  that  the  ancient 
bishoprics  were  the  same  as  modern  parishes,  under  the 
proper  pastoral  care  of  the  bishop,  though  they  might 
have  been  larger  in  extent  of  territory,  or  have  covered 
a  greater  space  of  ground.  In  descanting  on  this  topic. 
Dr.  C,  to  show  his  view  of  the  subject,  selects  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  among  others,  as  a  specimen  of 
the  extent  of  the  ancient  churches.  And  as  we  have 
authentic  accounts  of  that  church  in  the  only  certain 
church  history  extant, — the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, — I 
will  [subject]  Dr.  C.'s  strictures  for  a  moment  to  the 
test  of  that  record.^ 

Among  all  the  writers  I  have  yet  looked  into,  I  must 
say  that  I  have  seldom  or  never  met  with  one  who  so 
frequently  and  so  coolly  avails  himself  of  the  petitio 
principii  (begging  the  question)  as  Dr.  C.  Lord  King, 
in  proof  of  his  position  that  presbyters  ordained,  ad- 
duces a  passage  from  Firmilian  above  quoted.  On 
which  Dr.  C,  after  a  train  of  other  remarks,  makes  the 
following  : — "  But  when,  in  addition  to  these  consider- 
ations we  have  Firmilian's  own  declaration  that  in  his 
epistle  he  is  speaking  of  bishops,  contest  is  at  an  end."t 
How  at  an  end  ?  Is  it  not  the  very  position  of  Lord  K., 
sustained  by  other  eminent  critics,  that  the  writers  of 

*  [The  author  appears  to  have  intended  to  insert  here  a  criticism  of  this 
kind,  which  he  had  previously  written.  It  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix, 
as  it  could  not  well  be  introduced  here. — Ed.]  t  Page  173. 


128  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

that  period  frequently  use  the  terms  bishop  and  pres- 
byter interchangeably, — calling  the  same  persons  indif- 
ferently by  one  or  the  other  name  ?  But  Dr.  C.'s  mind 
seems  so  engrossed  with  the  notion  that  bishop  can  be 
no  other  than  a  high  church  diocesan,  that  wherever 
the  word  occurs,  this  idea  seems  with  him  a  matter  of 
course.  The  following  may  be  given  as  an  instance  : — 
the  phrase  "  majores  7iatu'''  in  Firmilian  is  rendered  by 
Lord  K.  "  seniors,"  or,  according  to  the  parallel  phrase, 
" probati  seniores  f  m  Tertullian,  "  approved  elders :"  and 
that  these  approved  elders,  for  reasons  which  Lord  K. 
assigns,  included  both  bishops  and  presbyters,  he  says 
"  must  necessarily  be  understood."*  On  this  statement 
of  Lord  K.'s,  Dr.  C.  thus  argues : — 

*'  It  is  furthermore  to  be  observed  that  all  Lord  King 
urges  on  this  passage  is,  that  majores  ncitu  included  both 
the  bishop  and  his  presbyters  ;  and  that  both  they  and 
the  bishop  ordained  together,  both  laying  on  their  hands 
in  ordination,  as  Timothy  was  ordained  by  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  :  that  is,  by  the  hands 
of  the  bishop  and  presbyters  of  that  parish  where  he 
was  ordained,  as  is  the  constant  signification  of  the 
word  p7'esbytery  in  all  the  writings  of  the  ancients." 
(Page  62,  part  i.)  By  his  own  account,  therefore,  a 
bishop  was  present  at  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  spoken 
of  in  Paul's  first  epistle  to  him,  and  "  Paul  must  have 
been  that  bishop."!  The  reader  will  observe  that  his 
aflarmation  is,  that  as  a  bishop  was  present,  according 
to  Lord  K.'s  "  own  account,"  it  follows  of  course  and 
necessarily  that  ''Paul  must  have  been  that  bishop." 
And  yet  nothing  is  plainer  than  that,  according  to  Lord 
K.,  the  bishop  was  the  pastor  of  that  particular  church 
where  Timothy  was  ordained,  who,  together  with  the 
presbyters  connected  with  him  in  the  same  church,  con- 
stituted its  "  presbytery." 

*  Inquiry,  p.  61  t  Page  173. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  129 

On  leavinof  Lord  Kin":  Dr.  C.  descends  at  once  to  the 
age  of  the  Reformation.  And  in  this  field  it  is  wonder- 
ful with  what  facility  he  puts  to  flight  whole  hosts  of 
"  men  of  first-rate  talents  and  learning,"  as  he  is  com- 
pelled to  admit  they  were  i'^  and  by  a  few  simple 
dashes  of  his  own  more  learned,  more  fearless,  or  more 
honest  pen,  demolishes  at  once  the  fair  fame  of  the  im- 
mortal band  who  jeoparded  their  lives  and  every  earthly 
interest  to  rescue  Christendom  "  from  the  tyranny  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome  and  all  his  detestable  enormities,"  as  the 
English  reformed  litany  originally  expressed  it. 

To  the  admission  of  the  validity  of  ordination  by 
presbyters,  on  the  part  of  many  of  the  most  distinguished 
episcopal  writers  and  dignitaries,  both  "  during  the  pro- 
gress of  the  reformation  and  since,"  Dr.  C.  replies,  that 
at  most  it  was  but  their  opinion  formed  upon  various 
considerations  : — in  some,  from  affection  for  individuals 
of  the  continental  reformers  ;  in  others,  perhaps  in  all 
of  the  early  English  reformers,  from.  Jea?-  of  the  conse- 
quences of  breaking  with  the  non-episcopal  churches ; 
that  some  *'  were  not  Episcopalians  in  principle,  [not  of 
Dr.  C.'s  "  stamp"  certainly,]  but  were  secretly  plotting 
to  subvert  tlie  order  of  the  church :"  that  "  even  some 
bishops  were  suspected  of  being  opposed  to  it ;"  and 
finally,  that  "  all  were  more  or  less  influenced  by  the 
fea?'  of  breaking  with  the  continental  reformers."! — So 
that  in  all  of  them,  according  to  Dr.  C,  this  pusillani- 
mous motive  operated  either  to  impair  their  intellect,  or 
else  to  destroy  their  integrity  in  a  matter  which,  on  his 
scheme,  is  essential  to  the  very  being  of  the  Christian 
church  !  Even  the  amiable  and  ti'uhj  apostolical  and 
Christian  spirit  which  breathed  in  the  breast  of  the 
magnanimous  Usher, — who  avowed  that  although  he 
deemed  those  churches  which  had  no  bishops  defective 
in  government,  yet  that  he  loved  and  honoured  them  as 
true  members  of  the  universal  church,  and  that,  were 

•  Page  179.  t  Page  178. 


130  EPISCOrAL   CONTEOYERSY   REVIEWED- 

he  in  Holland,  he  would  receive  the  blessed  sacrament 
at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  with  the  like  affection  that  he 
would  from  the  hands  of  the  French  minister,  were  he 
at  Clarenton,'^ — even  this  illustrious  primate's  motives 
must  fall  under  Dr.  C.'s  imputation  of  weakness  or  of 
dishonesty.  Nay,  the  no  less  amiable  and  equally  apos- 
tolical and  Christian  spirit  of  the  continental  reformers., 
who  received  the  English  episcopal  fugitives  from  the 
terrors  of  bloody  Mary  "  with  the  utmost  cordiality," 
and  treated  them  "  with  the  greatest  friendship  and 
hospitality/'  in  passing  through  Dr.  C.'s  alembic,  is 
strangely  transmuted  into  an  auxiliary  of  his  cause. 
One  would  suppose,  if  the  characteristics  of  discipleship 
established  by  the  Master  are  to  be  regarded,  that  it 
ought  to  be  considered  rather  as  a  proof  of  the  Chris- 
tian ofenuineness  of  churches  whose  leaders  and  mem- 
bers  breathed  such  a  spirit. — "By  this  shall  all  men 
know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  to 
another:"!  a  testimony  worth  ten  thousand  "passages," 
genuine  or  spurious,  from  St.  Ignatius,  or  any  other 
uninspired  saint.  This  spirit,  which  reciprocally  ani- 
mated the  English  and  continental  churches,  in  their 
official  and  ministerial  intercourse  with  each  other,  in 
those  golden  days  of  mutual  and  joint  resistance  to 
high  church  and  popery.  Dr.  C.'s  doctrine  would  and 
does,  at  this  day,  banish  from  the  earth.  It  is  the 
doctrine  of  thorough  sectarian  bigotry  and  Scriptural 
schism.  For  what  is  schism,  in  the  true  Scriptural 
sense,  but  the  alienation  of  Christians  from  each  other 
in  heart.  And  if  this  be  its  genuine  import,  as,  on  the 
authority  of  inspiration,  we  affirm  it  is,  then  whose  doc- 
trine, tested  by  this  infallible  criterion,  is  most  schisma- 
tical,  that  of  Usher,  or  that  of  Dr.  C.  ?  In  other  words, 
whose  is  most  hostile  or  friendly  to  that  fundamental 
principle  of  Christianity  among  Christians  and  churches, 
— mutual  love?  whose  tends  most  to  conciliate  their 

*  Letter  to  Dr.  Bernard.  t  John  xiii.  35. 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  131 

affections  where  differences  have  unhappily  arisen,  or, 
by  means  of  uncharitable  and  dogmatical  decisions  to 
widen  the  breach,  and  hinder  their  reciprocal  recogni- 
tion and  ecclesiastical  intercourse  ?  Where  the  former 
spirit  prevails,  it  is  Christian ;  where  the  latter,  it  is 
schismatical. 

I  know  that  Dr.  C.  is  pleased  to  say,  that  it  is  "  far 
from  being  the  desire  of  those  who  believe  that  episco- 
pal [high  church]  ordination  alone  is  valid,  to  prevent 
any  qualified  person  from  entering  into  the  ministry."^ 
And  that  "  they  only  wish"  them  to  "  obtain  that"  "  au- 
thority" "  which  is"  valid.*  That  is  to  say,  in  effect, 
"  Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in  thy  name, 
and  we  forbad  him,  because  he  folloivcth  not  us^  The 
answer  of  Jesus  is  our  answer.  If  the  reader  please 
he  may  look  at  it,  Mark  ix,  38,  and  Luke  ix,  49.  Can 
any  be  so  blind  as  not  to  discern  the  very  spirit  of  the 
sectary  lurking  under  the  cloak  of  Dr.  C.'s  apparent 
liberality  ?  f 

I  find  little  in  the  remaining  part  of  Dr.  C.'s  work  that 
is  worthy  of  observation.  What  he  says  in  reference 
to  Mr-  W.  and  on  the  Scripture  argument,  will  be  no- 
ticed hereafter.^:  It  would  seem,  indeed,  according  to 
Dr.  C,  that  not  only  the  Scriptures,  and  all  the  ancient 
Christian  writers,  but  even  the  master  spirits  among  the 
continental  reformers,  (from  fear  of  whom,  murk  it, 
according  to  the  same  Dr.  C.,  or  from  affection  for  whom, 
the  English  episcopal  reformers  had  proved  recreant  to 
their  own  principles  and  to  their  church,  many  of  them 
having  been  corrupted  in  this  respect  by  the  great  hos- 
pitality and  friendship  of  those  said  continental  reform- 

•  Pages  147,  148. 

t  [Here  is  a  note  in  the.  MS.  indicating  that  the  author  intended  to  insert 
an  extract  from  something  which  he  had  previously  written.  To  avoid  eon- 
fusion,  it  is  given  in  the  Appendix. — Ed.] 

\  [Never  accomplished,  except  so  far  as  the  Scripture  argument  is  taken 
up  in  his  reply  to  Dr.  Onderdonk,  at  the  close  of  this  book. — Ed.] 


13^  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

ers  during  an  actual  residence  among  them !)  are  in 
favour  of  the  high  church  scheme.  Now  this  is  really 
passing  strange.  That  they  should  have  been  in 
sentiment  and  in  heart  at  least  decided  Episcopalians 
themselves,  and  yet,  not  only  by  their  public  acts  and 
writings,  but  in  their  intimate,  social,  and  confidential 
personal  intercourse,  have  so  greatly  and  so  injuriously 
influenced  episcopalians  against  episcopacy  !  The  in- 
consistency of  these  opposite  grounds,  both  taken  by 
Dr.  C,  is  so  manifest  and  glaring,  that  I  am  driven  to 
the  conclusion  that  he  mistakes  his  men  and  mistakes 
their  meaning.  The  continental  reformers,  in  a  noble 
and  commendable  reciprocation  of  the  truly  Christian 
and  enlightened  spirit  of  the  English  episcopal  reform- 
ers, undoubtedly  admitted  the  lawfulness  of  episcopacy, 
and  in  certain  circumstances  its  expediency  and  high 
"Utility.  That  there  was  nothing  in  it,  when  properly 
understood,  inconsistent  with  gospel  principles  or  apos- 
tolical precept  or  example : — that  it  had  in  fact,  pre- 
vailed in  the  church  generally  from  a  very  early  period, 
if  not  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  ;  and  that,  from  these 
considerations  there  was  nothing  in  it,  thus  understood, 
to  offend  a  good  conscience  or  to  require  separation  from 
episcopal  communion.  That  those  of  them  who  went 
the  farthest  meant  nothing  more,  is  evident  from  Dr. 
C.'s  own  selected  passages  from  Grotius  himself,  of 
whom  he  makes  the  largest  and  strongest  use.  I  need 
not  here  repeat  what  has  been  so  often  mentioned  by 
others,  that  Grotius  is  believed  to  have  become  some- 
what soured  by  the  ill  treatment  he  received  from  the 
Presbyterian  churches  of  Holland.  His  own  language, 
as  quoted  by  Dr.  C.  himself,  is  sufl^cient  for  my  present 
purpose.  The  very  title  of  one  of  the  sections  of  Gro- 
tius, from  which  Dr.  C.  takes  a  number  of  his  quota- 
tions, is,  "  The  episcopal  superiority  is  not  of  Divine 
command.''''  This  proposition  he  then  proceeds  to  esta- 
blish by  a  variety  of  arguments,  and  explicitly  asserts 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  133 

that  what  he  thus  alleges  for  "  the  equality  of  pastors" 
is  "  not  at  all  repugnant  to  the  former ;" — that  is,  to 
what  he  had  before  said  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy. 
He  shows  plainly  also,  that  he  understood  Jerome  in 
the  sense  which  has  been  herein  represented,  and  that 
he  himself  adopted  the  same  views.  "Jerome  says, 
[remarks  Grotius,]  The  bishops  became  greater  than  the 
presbyters,  more  by  custom  than  by  the  truth  of  the  Di- 
vine ordering^  He  quotes  St.  Augustine,  bishop  of 
Hippo  in  the  same  century,  to  the  same  effect,  as  fol- 
lows :  "  The  episcopate  is  greater  than  the  presbyter  ate 
in  the  name  of  honour  ivhich  the  practice  of  the  church 
hath  retained.''''  Epist.  xix.  He  admits  indeed  that  when 
the  fathers  speak  of  "  custom,"  they  do  not  exclude  that 
of  the  apostolical  age  itself :  but  contends  at  the  same 
time  that  not  every  apostolical  institution  or  practice 
is  therefore  necessarily  of  Divine  command ;  of  which 
he  alleges  several  instances,  and  then  continues  thus  : — 
"  Add  also,  that  the  apostles  so  instituted  bishops,  that 
they  left  certain  churches  without  bishops :  Epiphanius 
acknowledges  this: — There  7vas  need  of  presbyters  and 
deacons,  for  by  these  two  the  ecclesiastical  offices  could  be 
fulfilled  ;  but  when  there  was  not  found  any  one  worthy 
of  the  episcopate,  the  place  remained  without  a  bishop ;  but 
when  there  was  need,  and  there  were  persons  worthy  of  the 
episcopate,  bishops  were  appointed.  Those  churches, 
therefore,  as  Jerome  says,  were  governed  by  the  common 
council  of  presbyters.'''' 

In  his  notes  on  some  of  the  above  extracts.  Dr.  C. 
makes  the  assertion  that  we  are  not  only  boimd  to  be- 
lieve what  the  apostles,  taught,  but  that  "  what  they  did 
we  are  bound  to  practise."'^ 

He  observes  also,  that  the  apostles  did  not  "  command 
that  the  church   should  be  governed  by  the  common 

*  Page  191.  [A  note  in  the  MS.  here,  indicates  that  the  author  intended 
to  add  some  instances  to  illustrate  the  absurdity  of  such  a  principle.  Such, 
however,  will  readily  present  ihemselves  to  the  reader. — Ed-] 


134  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

council  of  presbyters."  This  is  granted,  and  accord- 
ingly and  consistently,  we  maintain,  that  the  presbyte- 
rian  model  of  church  polit}'-  is  no  more  of  essential,  uni- 
versal, and  perpetual  obligation,  by  Divine  right,  than 
high-church  episcopacy. 

If  any  thing  be  yet  wanting  to  set  Grotius's  opinion 
in  a  clear  light,  the  following  w^ith  ordinary  persons, 
though  probably  not  with  Dr.  C,  seem  to  be  sufficient. 
*'  All  the  ancients  [says  Grotius]  confess  that  there  was 
no  act  so  peculiarly  the  bishop's  [co7rfirmation,  of  course, 
included,  Dr.  C.  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding]  that  it 
might  not  also  be  exercised  by  the  presbyter,  except  the 
right  of  ordaining."  He  quotes  Chrj^sostom  and  Jerome 
to  shov/  this,  and  then  adds  : — "  But  although  the  right 
of  ordaining  is  taken  mv  ay  from  'presbyters,  [mark,  'is 
tahen  away^  not  that  they  never  possessed  it,]  accord- 
ing" to  the  opinion  of  these  fathers,  which  constitution 
(or  law)  may  be  seen  in  many  councils  universal  and 
local,  [which  shows  by  what  means,  in  his  view,  the 
right  had  been  taken  away  from  presbyters,]  what 
nevertheless  hinders  that  we  may  interpret  it  so  that 
presbyters  could  ordain  no  one  without  the  bishop's 
consent  ?" 

A  little  after  he  says,  "  Yet  I  do  not  see  how  that  can 
be  refuted,  where  there  are  not  bishops,  that  ordination 
might  be  rightly  performed  even  by  a  presbyter."  And 
again  : — "  Then,  as  we  have  said  above,  it  is  doubtful 
w  hether  presbyters,  who  neither  have  presbyters  under 
them  nor  a  bishop  over  them,  belong  to  (the  order  of) 
bishops,  or  to  (that  of)  mere  presbyters.  For  Ambrose 
thus  argues  of  Timothy, — -he,  who  had  no  other  before 
him,  was  a  bishop.  Indeed,  (that  we  may  take  an  ex- 
ample from  the  republic,)  many  things  are  lawful  to  a 
senate  not  havino-  a  kingf,  which  are  not  lawful  to  a 
senate  constituted  under  a  king.  Because  a  senate 
without  a  kino-  is  as  it  were  a  king." 

The  passage  of  "  Ambrose,"  above  alluded  to  by  Gro* 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  135 

tius,  is  probably  that  of  Hilary,  whose  works  are  always 
bound  up  with  those  of  Ambrose,  and  by  some  blunder 
in  the  editors,  says  Dr.  Campbell,  continue  to  pass 
under  his  name.  Dr.  C.  seems  also  to  have  taken 
Hilary  as  Ambrose.  The  entire  passage  is  one  which 
I  cannot  but  think  entirely  refutes  the  efforts  made  by 
Dr.  C.  in  a  former  part  of  his  work  to  enlist  Hilary  in 
his  service.  It  also  explains  fully  the  observation 
which  Dr.  C.  so  often  repeats,  on  the  credit  of  Hilary, 
that  though  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  yet  every  pres- 
byter is  not  a  bishop.  The  connection  and  explana- 
tion of  this  very  just  saying,  as  given  by  Hilary  himself, 
Dr.  C.  is  careful  to  omit.  But  the  reader  shall  have  it 
in  Hilary's  own  w^ords,  from  his  Commentary  on  the 
third  chapter  of  first  Timothy ;  of  which  the  papal 
critic  Richard  Simon  says,  there  are  few  ancient  com- 
ments on  the  epistle  of  St.  Paul,  and  even  on  the  whole 
New  Testament,  which  can  be  compared  with  this. 
The  words  are  : — 

"  Post  episcopum  tamen  diaconi  ordinationem  sub- 
jecit.  Quare  ?  nisi  quia  episcopi  et  presbyteri  una  or- 
dinatio  est?  Uterque  enim  sacerdos  est.  Sed  episco- 
pus  primus  est ;  ut  omnis  episcopus  presbyter  sit,  non 
omnis  presbyter  episcopus.  Hie  enim  episcopus  est,  qui 
inter  presbyteros  primus  est.  Denique  Timotheum  pres- 
byterum  ordinaturn  significat,  sed  quia  ante  se  alterum 
non  habebat,  episcopus  erat."^ 

After  such  explicit  declarations  as  those  above  quoted, 
from  Grotius,  it  surely  must  be  an  attempt  which  pre- 
sumes not  a  little  on  the  reader's  credulity  or  ignorance, 
to  undertake  to  class  that  eminent  man  among  the  sup- 
porters of  Dr.  C.^s  notions  of  episcopacy,  and  not  less  so 

*  See  Campbell's  Lect.  on  Eccl.  Hist.,  p.  116. 

["  After  the  bishop  he  places  the  order  of  deacon.  Why  1  unless  it  be 
because  the  ordination  of  bishop  and  presbyter  is  one  ]  For  each  is  a  priest. 
But  the  bishop  is  first ;  so  that  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  not  every 
presbyter  a  bishop.  For  he  is  a  bishop  who  is  first  among  the  presbyters. 
Finally,  he  declares  that  Timothy  was  ordained  a  presbyter,  but  because  hg 
ha<l  no  other  before  hira,  he  was  a  bishop." — Ed. J 


136  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

certainly  to  rank  in  the  same  class  even  Calvin  and 
Beza!  The  latter  of  these  eminent  men,  indeed,  ac- 
cording to  Grotius,  (who  was  expressly  speaking  at  the 
same  time  of  "  the  churches  which  have  no  bishops,") 
thought  it  ought  by  no  means  to  be  omitted  that  '"'  it 
was  essential  that,  by  the  perpetual  ordination  of  God, 
it  was,  it  is,  and  it  will  be  necessary  that  some  one  in  the 
freshytery,  chief  both  in  place  and  dignity,  should  preside 
to  govern  the  proceedings  with  that  right  which  is  given 
to  him  by  God  :"  meaning  obviously,  that  in  every  pres- 
bytery there  should  be  a  presiding  presbyter,  chief  both 
in  place  and  dignity,  to  govern  the  proceedings  as  presi- 
dent, with  a  right  to  exact  the  submission  required  by 
order  and  the  ecclesiastical  constitution,  in  accordance 
with  the  general  principle  ordained  of  God, — let  every 
soul  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers, — agreeably  to  the 
specific  constitution  of  government  under  which  they 
live,  whether  of  church  or  state. 

In  fine,  Grotius's  view  of  episcopacy  ill  fact,  apart 
from  names  and  forms,  which  do  not  at  all  alter  things, 
is  set  forth  w^ith  the  lucidness  of  a  sunbeam,  in  the  fol- 
lowing emphatic  passage  : — "  And  (if  with  Zanchius 
[says  that  very  eminent  man]  I  will  acknowledge  the 
truth)  in  reality  no  men  were  bishops  more  than  those 
very  men  whose  authority  availed  to  oppose  even  the 
episcopate." 

The  above  extracts  are  from  Grotius's  work  on 
Church  Government,  in  the  words  of  the  translations 
adopted  by  Dr.  C.  himself 

In  reg-ard  to  Calvin  Dr.  C.  makes  an  extract  of  some 
length  from  his  Institutes,  [book  iv,  chap,  iv,  2,]  which 
I  beg  leave  to  submit  entire,  for  a  reason  which  will 
immediately  appear.     It  is  as  follows  : — 

''  They  named  all  those  on  whom  was  enjoined  the 
office  of  teaching  presbyters.  These  chose  one  of  their 
number  in  every  city,  to  whom  in  particular  they  gave 
the  title  of  bishop ;  lest  from  equaUty,  as  usually  hap- 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  137 

pens,  dissensions  should   arise.     Yet  the   bishop   was 
not  so  superior  in  honour  and  dignity,  that  he  had  do- 
minion over  his  colleagues  :  but  those  duties  which  a 
consul  performs  in  the  senate,  that  he  may  report  con- 
cerning matters,  collect  their  opinions,  go  before  others 
in   consulting,    admonishing,    exhorting,    regulate    the 
whole  proceedings  by  his  own  authority,  and  execute 
what  may  have  been  determined  in  common  council  ; 
that  office  the  bishop  sustained  in  the  assembly  of  pres- 
byters.    And   the  ancients  themselves   confess  that  it 
was  introduced  by  human  agreement,  through  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  times.     Thus  Jerome,  on  the  epistle  to 
Titus,  says  :     '  A  presbj^ter  is  the   same  as  a  bishop. 
And  before  that  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil  dissen- 
sions were  made  in  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the 
people,  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Cephas,  the  churches  were 
governed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters.     After- 
ward, that  the  seeds  of  dissension  might  be  taken  away, 
the  whole  charge  was  committed  to  one.     As,  therefore, 
the  presbyters  know  that  they  are  subject  by  the  cus- 
tom of  the  church  to  him  who  is  over  them  ;   so  the 
bishops  may  have  known  that  they  are  superior  to  the 
presbyters  more  by  custom  than  by  the  Lord's  appoint- 
ment, and  oug-ht  to  o-overn  the  church  in  common.'    He 
elsewhere,  however,  teaches  how  ancient  the  institution 
was.     For  he  says,  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark  the  evan- 
gelist to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  the  presbyters  always 
placed  one  chosen  from  themselves  in  a  higher  degree, 
whom  they  call  bishop." — "  To  every  city  was  allotted 
a   certain    region   which   received  its  presbyters   from 
thence,  and  was  added  to  the  body  of  that  church. — 
Every   college    (as  I  have   said)  was   subject   to   one 
bishop,  for  the  sake  of  government  only  and  preserving 
peace  ;  who  so  exceeded  others  in  dignify  that  he  was 
subject  to  the  assembly   of  the  brethren.     But  if  the 
tract  of  country  which  was  in  his   bishopric   was   so 
large  that  he  could  not  fulfd  all  the  duties  of  a  bishop. 


138  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

presbyters  were  appointed  in  certain  places  through 
that  country  who  should  discharge  his  duty  in  minor 
matters." 

In  the  sentence  immediately  following  this  extract, 
Dr.  C.  says  :  "  In  this  passage  Calvin  fully  admits  the 
main  facts  contended  for  by  Episcopalians.""^  He  cer- 
tainly does  admit  in  it  the  main  facts  contended  for  by 
Methodist  Episcopalians ;  and  if  Dr.  C.  is  satisfied  with 
the  footing  on  which  Calvin  places  the  subject  in  this 
passage,  then  am  I  perfectly  content  here  to  end  the 
controversy,  and  to  leave  every  reader  for  himself  to 
judge  and  interpret  Calvin's  language  without  a  word 
of  comment  from  any  quarter.  For  nothing,  to  my 
humble  apprehension,  could  be  more  diametrically  op- 
posite to  Dr.  C.'s  "  main"  positions,  than  those  here 
asserted  by  that  learned  and  eminent  reformer. 

On  the  same  page  with  the  above  extract  there  is  a 
note  of  Dr.  C.'s,  which  seems  to  me  to  be  a  curiosity  in 
logic.  He  undertakes  to  prove  that  Jerome  "  did  not 
then  confess  it,  as  Calvin  says,"  "that  a  presbyter  is  the 
same  as  a  bishop."  He  commences,  indeed,  with  say- 
inof,  "  accordino-  to  Dr.  Miller :"  but  concludes  with  the 
broad  affirmation  which  I  have  just  stated.  What  then 
did  Jerome  do ?  Why,  says  Dr.  C,  "He  only  inferred, 
and  he  himself  calls  it  an  opinion."  That  is  to  say, 
Jerome's  words,  according  to  Dr.  Miller,  are, — "  A  pres- 
byter therefore  is  the  same  as  a  bishop."!  And  yet 
Dr.  C.  gravely  and  stoutly  denies  that,  even  with  regard 
to  the  primitive  period  of  which  Jerome  was  speaking, 
this  is  either  a  confession  or  an  assertion  that  a  pres- 
byter was  the  same  as  a  bishop  !  With  an  author  who 
can  allow  himself  such  liberty  argument  surely  must 
be  hopeless. 

To  be  obliged  to  read  the  same  things  a  hundred 
times  over  in  one  small  volume  is  irksome  enough ;  but 

*  Page  198.  t  Miller's  Letters,  p.  180. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  139 

to  be  obli(>-ed  to  answer  them  as  often  would  be  still 
more  so  ;  and  yet  one  must  do  this,  or  pass  by  much 
that  Dr.  C.  says.  The  very  strong  terms  and  phrases 
"  impossible,"  ''  utterly  impossible,"  "  the  only  possibi- 
lity," "  the  very  idea  is  absurd,"  "  an  absurdity  too 
great  to  be  advocated  by  any  man  in  his  senses,"  and 
others  similar,  which  so  frequently  occur  in  this  gentle- 
man's production,  seem  to  me  neither  to  add  any  special 
grace  to  style,  nor  force  to  argument,  and  to  evince 
rather  more  of  overweening  conceit  of  his  own  opinions 
on  the  part  of  the  author,  than  of  modest  respect  for  his 
readers,  who — as  above  said — within  the  vast  scope  of 
bare  possibility,  might  possibly  happen  to  differ  from 
him. 

For  example,  Dr.  C.  says,  "  The  only  possibility  of  a 
breach  in  the  episcopal  succession  could  arise  from  the 
bishops  at  some  period  of  the  church  laying  aside  the 
ceremony  of  ordination,  or  allowing  other  than  bishops 
to  ordain  bishops.  The  first  idea  is  an  absurdity  too 
great  to  be  advocated  by  any  man  in  his  senses  ;  and 
as  to  the  other,  w^hen  no  instance  can  be  produced  by 
the  ablest  and  most  learned  advocates  for  presbyterian 
ordination,  in  which  presbyters  laid  on  hands  by  per- 
mission of  the  church  until  the  year  657 — ."'^ 

Now  in  regard  to  "the  first  idea"  in  the  above  pas- 
sage, I  would  just  remind  Dr.  C.  of  "  the  case  of  the 
episcopal  churches  in  the  United  States"  at  the  close  of 
our  revolutionary  war;  and  then  let  him  consider  the 
"  Sketch  of  a  Frame  of  Government,"  offered  by  Dr. 
White  on  that  occasion,  in  which  he  says, — "  '  In  each 
smaller  district  there  should  be  elected  a  general  vestry 
or  convention,  consisting  of  a  convenient  number,  (the. 
minister  to  be  one.)  They  should  elect  a  clergyman  their 
permanent  presidetit ;   who,  in  conjunction  with  other 

*  Page  200.  Dr.  C.  aftenvard,  pao^e  210,  acknovvledjjes  this  date  to  be 
erronoous,  and  that  what  he  alludes  to  here  was  in  the  fourlli  century,  and 
not  in  the  seventh,  as  here. 


140  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

clergymen,  to  be  also  appointed  by  the  body,  may  exer 
cise  such  powers  as  are  purely  sipirituBl,  particularly  that 
of  admitting  to  the  ministry,^  p.  11." 

"  Again  :  '  The  conduct  meant  to  be  recommended  is, 
to  include  in  the  proposed  frame  of  government  a  gene- 
ral approbation  of  episcopacy  and  a  declaration  of  an 
intention  to  procure  the  succession  as  soon  as  conve- 
niently may  be  ;  but  in  the  meantime  to  carry  the  plan 
into  effect  without  waiting  for  the  succession'  Ibid.,  p.  15." 

"  '  But  it  will  also  be  said,'  continues  Dr.  White, 
'  that  the  very  name  of  "  bishop'''  is  offensive  ;  if  so, 
change  it  for  another ;  let  the  superior  clergyma7i  be  a 
president,  a  superintendeiit,  or  in  plain  English,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  literal  translation  of  the  original,  an 
overseer.  However,  if  names  are  to  be  reprobated,  be- 
cause the  powers  annexed  to  them  are  abused,  there  are 
few  appropriated  to  either  civil  or  ecclesiastical  distinc- 
tions, which  would  retain  their  places  in  our  catalogue.' 
Ibid.,  p.  17." 

Is  it  not  plain  from  the  above  that  Dr.  W.  did  not 
consider  it  so  perfectly  absurd  an  idea  that  there  might 
be  a  valid  episcopacy  in  fact,  under  whatever  name, 
simply  by  election,  without  the  usual  ceremony  of  ordi- 
nation ?  It  w^ould  seem,  he  must  either  have  meant  this, 
or  that  there  should  be  an  episcopal  consecration  by 
presbyters.     Dr.  C.  may  take  his  choice. 

Again  :  some  very  learned  men  have  been  of  opinion, 
(and  I  merely  mention  this  in  evidence  that  the  idea 
possibly  may  not  be  so  utterly  absurd,)  that  the  episco- 
pal church  of  Alexandria  did  perhaps  actually  dispense 
with  the  usual  form  of  imposing  hands  in  the  creation  of 
bishops,  for  about  two  hundred  years  ;  using  no  other 
forms  than  simple  election,  and  the  subsequent  instal- 
ment and  salutation,  as  the  army  created  an  emperor, 
or  deacons  an  archdeacon. 

As  to  the  other  part  of  Dr.  C.'s  alternative,  viz.,  "  al- 
lowing  other   than  bishops  [in   his   sense]  to    ordain 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  RE  VIEWED.  141 

bishops," — he  cannot  be  permitted,  without  contradiction, 
to  persist  in  repeating  a  hundred  times  over,  when  at 
least  the  long  series  of  such  ordinations,  virtually  or 
formally,  in  the  ancient  apostolical  church  of  Alexan- 
dria stands  recorded,  in  so  many  learned  pages,  an  im- 
perishable refutation  of  the  baseless  assertion.  Nor  is 
there  any  evidence  that  "  the  church,"  universal  or  par- 
ticular, ever  condemned  them.  As  to  "  the  ancient 
church"  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and  the  coun- 
cils of  that  period,  they  have  already  been  sufficiently 
considered.* 

The  progressive  tendency,  as  the  church  became 
more  and  more  corrupt,  and  the  hierarchy  more  firmly 
established,  to  restrict  the  right  of  ordaining  bishops,  is 
manifest  from  the  fact,  admitted  by  Dr.  C.,t  that  after 
the  rise  of  metropolitan  bishops,  they  began  gradually 
to  claim  to  themselves  this  exclusive  right. 

Before  closing  his  work,  Dr.  C.  says,  "  It  has  been 
doubted  whether  the  ordination  of  Archbishop  Parker, 
through  whom  all  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  of  England  derive  their  ordination,  was  per- 
fectly canonical ;  because  the  persons  who  ordained  him 
had  been  deprived  of  their  bishoprics  and  expelled  the 
country  by  the  Popish  party,  on  the  accession  of  Mary 
to  the  crown  of  England.  The  question  to  be  settled  in 
this  case  is,  whether  a  bishop  who  is  expelled  from  his 
bishopric  by  a  successful  party,  in  the  contest  about 
doctrines  which  have  in  all  ages  agitated  the  church, 
is  hereby  deprived  of  his  character  of  bishop.":}: 

On  this  quotation  I  would  ask,  (1.)  Was  the  contest 
of  the  English  reformers  with  the  Church  of  Rome  one 
merely  "  about  doctrines  ?" — Why,  then,  w^as  that  peti- 

*  Dr.  Jortin  remarks,  that  "  he  who  will  believe  all  that  he  finds  related 
by  the  writers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  should  be  provided  with  a 
double  portion  of  credulity,  and  have  the  stomach  of  an  ostrich  to  digest 
fables." — Remarks  on  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  i,  p.  168. 

t  Page  207.  X  Ibid. 


142  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

tion  inserted  in  the  early  litany  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, "  From  the  tyranny  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and 
all  his  detestable  enormities,  good  Lord,  deliver  us  ?" 

(2.)  What  does  Dr.  C.  mean  by  the  episcopal  "  cha- 
racter V  That  he  does  not  mean  the  personal  religious 
or  moral  character  of  a  bishop  is  plain.  Does  he 
mean,  then,  that  mysterious  something  which  Ro- 
manists assert  to  be  imprinted  in  orders,  and  which 
some  of  them  define  to  be  "  a  power  to  work  a  spi- 
ritual effect  ?"  or,  with  others  of  them,  does  he  admit 
''  the  character'''  to  be  merely  "  a  deputation  to  a  special 
office  T*  Whether,  even  according  to  the  former  defi- 
nition, the  character  may  not  be  lost  or  taken  away,  I 
shall  not  here  discuss. f     But  if  Dr.  C.  intends  it  in  the 

*  The  reader  may  see  some  curious  disquisitions  on  tiiis  subject  in  Sarpi's 
History  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  page  593.  In  the  debate  in  that  body  on 
the  question  of  the  character,  was  involved  the  fundamental  point  in  this 
controversy,  viz.,  whether  in  the  sacrament  of  orders,  as  the  Romanists  con- 
sider it,  any  higher  character  can  be  imprinted  than  that  oi priesthood.  On 
this  point,  even  at  that  period,  late  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  doctors  and 
theologues,  prelates,  and  cardinals,  in  that  famous  papal  assembly  itself, 
were  greatly  divided. 

t  The  reader  who  desires  to  know  the  true  "character"  of  those  who 
filled  the  "  apostolical  chairs,"  both  in  the  eastern  and  western  churches, 
during  a  long  series  of  the  boasted  successions,  by  divine  right,  from  which 
high-church  ultraists,  Greek  or  Roman,  Protestant  or  Papal,  claim  exclusive 
title  to  minister  in  holy  things,  may  see  it  amply  and  revoltingly  enough  por- 
trayed in  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  ii,  pp.  389,  390.  The  fol- 
lowing is  a  specimen  : — 

"  To  those  who  consider  the  primitive  dignity,  and  the  solemn  nature  of 
the  ministerial  character,  the  corruptions  of  the  clergy  must  appear  deplora- 
ble beyond  all  expression.  These  corruptions  were  mounted  to  the  most 
enormous  height  in  that  dismal  period  of  the  church  which  we  have  now  be- 
fore us.  Both  in  the  eastern  and  western  provinces,  the  clergy  were,  for 
the  most  part,  shamefully  illiterate  and  stupid,  ignorant  more  especially  in 
religious  matters,  equally  enslaved  to  sensuality  and  superstition,  and  capable 
of  the  most  abominable  and  flagitious  deeds.  This  miserable  degeneracy  of 
the  sacred  order  was,  according  to  the  most  credible  accounts,  principally 
owing  to  the  pretended  chiefs  and  rulers  of  the  universal  church,  who  in- 
dulged themselves  in  the  commission  of  the  most  odious  crimes,  and  aban- 
doned themselves  to  the  lawless  impulse  of  the  most  licentious  passions 
without  reluctance  or  remorse;  who  confounded,  in  short,  all  difference  be- 
tween just  and  unjust,  to  satisfy  their  impious  ambition  ;  and  whose  spiritual 
empire  was  such  a  diversified  scene  of  iniquity  and   violence  as  never  was 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  143 

latter  sense,  then  may  it  not  be  lost  by  deprivation,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  Protestant  bishops,  of  whom  Dr.  C. 
speaks,  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  who  were  deprived  by  the 
existing  authority,  both  ecclesiastical  and  civil?  The 
case  of  the  bishop  of  Worcester,  who  fled  to  the  conti- 
nent on  the  death  of  Mary,  and  was  recognised  as  a 
bishop  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  is  not  parallel.  For  in 
the  latter  case  it  was  the  papal  church  acknowledging 
its  own  bishop  ;  whereas,  the  former  was  that  of  bishops 
resisting  and  separating  from  that  mother  church  from 
which  they  had  derived  their  authority,  and  to  which 
they  had  owed  obedience ;  and  who,  consequently, 
were  schismatics,  both  on  [Dr.  C.'s]  principles  and  those 
of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

Dr.  Miller  quotes  a  passage  from  Hilary,  a  Roman 
deacon  in  the  fourth  century,  which  he  renders  thus  : — 
"  In  Egypt,  even  at  this  day,  the  presbyters  ordain  in 
the  bishop's  absence."  No,  says  Dr.  C,  the  passage 
does  not  mean  that  they  ordain,  but  that  they  confirm ; 
the  word  used  by  Hilary  is  "  consignant  ;"  which  Ains- 
worth  renders  "  seal,  sign,  mark,  register,  record,  confirm, 
and  ratify y  Now,  continues  Dr.  C,  "there  is  not  one 
of  these  words  that  does  not  correspond  with  the  real 

exhibited  under  any  of  those  temporal  tyrants  who  have  been  the  scourges  of 
mankind.  We  may  form  some  notion  of  the  Grecian  patriarchs  from  the 
single  example  of  Theophylact,  who,  according  to  the  testimonies  of  the  most 
respectable  writers,  made  the  most  impious  traffic  of  ecclesiastical  promo- 
tions, and  expressed  no  sort  of  care  about  any  thing  but  his  dogs  and  horses. 
Degenerate,  however,  and  licentious  as  these  patriarchs  might  be,  they  were, 
generally  speaking,  less  profligate  and  indecent  than  the  Roman  pontifls. 

"The  history  of  the  Roman  pontiffs,  that  lived  in  this  century,  is  a  history 
of  so  many  monsters,  and  not  of  men,  and  exhibits  a  horrible  series  of  the 
most  flagitious,  tremendous,  and  complicated  crimes,  as  all  writers,  even 
those  of  the  Romish  communion,  unanimously  confess." 

Can  the  most  veteran  and  indomitable  controvertist  have  the  hardihood 
seriously  to  undertake  to  persuade  Protestant  Christians  of  the  19th  century, 
that  the  horrible  "  monsters"  above  mentioned,  in  both  the  eastern  and  west- 
ern hemisphere,  were  truly  "  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron," — "  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  and  throughout  their  flagitious  career  enjoyed  exclusively  the  ful- 
filment of  that  gracious  promise,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway  V  He  who  can 
digest  such  a  fable,  must  indeed,  as  Jortin  said  on  another  occasion,  "  have 
the  stomach  of  an  ostrich." 


144  EPISCOPAL   CONTROYErvSY   REYIEVrED. 

signification  of  confirming  by  the  bishop. — But  there  is 
not  one  of  these  words  that  has  any  reference  to  setting 
apart  by  ordination."^  The  reader  will  not  forget  that 
Dr.  C.  elsewhere  denies  as  stoutly  that  presbyters 
anciently  confirmed  as  that  they  ordained.  Here  he  is 
obliged  to  admit  it  to  be  Hilary's  testimony  that  they 
confirmed,  in  order  to  avoid  admitting  it  as  a  testi- 
mony that  they  ordained.  But  then  what  becomes  of 
the  "  charactef  imprinted  in  ordination ;  if  not  one  of 
the  words  used  by  Ainsworth  to  express  the  sense 
of  cojisigno  "  has  any  reference  to  setting  apart  by  or- 
dination ?"  To  "  sign,"  to  "  mark," — have  these  terms 
no  reference  w^hatever  to  impressing  or  imprinting  a 
^^  character?'''' 

But  there  is  much  more  yet  to  be  said  as  to  the 
ground  on  w^hich  the  regularity  of  the  archiepiscopal 
ordination  of  Dr.  Parker,  through  whom  all  the  bishops 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  England  and 
America  claim  title,  is  disputed.  In  the  reign  of  Henry 
Vni.  the  bishops  of  the  Popish  party, — although  it  does 
not  appear  that  Cranmer  (or  perhaps  the  rest)  did  so, 
in  that  reign,  as  Burnet  says, — took  out  commissions, 
by  which  they  solemnly  acknowledged  "  That  all  juris- 
diction, civil  and  ecclesiastical,  flowed  from  the  king,  and 
that  they  exercised  it  only  at  the  king's  courtesie ;  and 
as  they  had  of  his  bounty,  so  they  would  be  ready  to 
deliver  it  up  when  he  should  be  pleased  to  call  for  it ; 
and  therefore  the  king  did  empower  them,  in  his  stead, 
to  ordain,  give  institution,  and  do  all  the  other  parts  of 
the  episcopal  function,  which  was  to  last  during  his 
pleasure."!  "By  this  [says  Bishop  Burnet  expressly] 
they  were  made  indeed  the  king's  bishops.'^t 

Again  : — In  the  succeeding  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  in 
the  year  1547,  the  same  historian  says,  "All  that  held 

*  Page  125. 

t  Burnet's  Abridgment  of  the  History  of  the  Reformation,  book  i,  pp. 
228,  229. 

X  Ibid.,  p.  229. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  145 

offices  were  required  to  come  and  renew  their  commis- 
sions, and  to  swear  allemance  to  the  kinp- :  amons"  the 
rest,  the  bishops  came  and  took  out  such  coiumissions  as 
were  granted  in  the  former  reig7i,  only  by  those  they 
were  subaltern  to  the  king's  vicegerent,  but  there  being 
none  now  in  that  office,  they  were  immediately  subaltern 
to  the  king ;  and  by  them  they  were  to  hold  their  bishop- 
rics only  during  the  king's  pleasure,  and  were  impow- 
ered  in  the  king's  name,  as  his  delegates,  to  perform 
all  the  parts  of  the  episcopal  function.  Cranmer  set  an 
example  to  the  rest  in  taking  out  one  of  those.  It  was 
thought  fit  thus  to  keep  the  bisliops  under  the  terror  of 
such  an  arbitrary  power  lodged  in  the  king,  that  so  it 
might  be  more  easy  to  turn  them  out,  if  they  should 
much  oppose  what  might  be  done  in  points  of  religion: 
but  the  ill  consequences  of  such  an  unlimited  power 
beinof  well  foreseen,  the  bishops  that  were  afterward 
promoted  were  not  so  fettered,  but  were  provided,  to 
hold  their  bishoprics  during  life."* 

In  the  same  reign  an  act  of  parliament  was  passed, 
"  that  the  conge  d'elire  and  the  election  pursuant  to  it 
being  but  a  shadow,  since  the  person  was  named  by 
the  king,  should  cease  for  the  future,  and  that  bishops 
should  be  named  by  the  king's  letters  patent,  and  there- 
upon be  consecrated."! 

"  The  form  of  the  patent  was,  That  the  king  appointed 
such  a  one  to  be  bishop  during  his  natural  life,  or  as  long 
as  he  behaved  himself  w^ell ;  and  gave  him  power  to 
ordain  or  deprive  ministers,  to  exercise  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  and  perform  all  the  other  parts  of  the  epis- 
copal function  that  by  the  word  of  God  were  committed 
to  bishops,  and  this  they  were  to  do  iri  the  hinges  name 
and  hy  his  authority. ""X 

Among  those  created  bishops  by  the  king's  letters 
patent,  by  which  he  was  empowered  to  ordain,  and  to 

•  Buinct's  Abridgment  of  the  History  of  liie  Reformalion,  book  ii,  pp.  4,  6. 
t   lb.,  p.  37.  I   lb.,  p.  193. 

10 


146  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

perform  all  the  other  parts  of  the  episcopal  function,  in 
the  kirig' s  name  and  by  his  authority ,  was  Barlow,  one  of 
those  very  persons  by  whom  Dr.  Parker  was  set  apart 
for  the  office  of  archbishop.^  Another  of  them  was 
Scory,  and  Neal  calls  Barlow  and  Scory  bishops  elect."! 
He  states  also,  that  although  Covei'dale  and  Hodghins, 
the  remaining  two,  assisted  in  Parkers  ordination,  yet 
they  never  exercised  the  episcopal  character  afterward. + 
It  is  certain,  moreover,  that  efforts  were  made,  in  the 
first  instarice,  to  induce  three  of  the  Popish  bishops  rvho 
had  not  been  depived  in  the  preceding  reign  to  unite  in 
the  ordination,  and  they  were  first  named  (viz.  Tonstal, 
Bourn,  and  Pool)  in  the  warrant  which  w^as  issued  by 
the  queen  (Elizabeth)  for  this  purpose.  This  is  a  de- 
monstration that  the  union  of  three  bishops  who  had 
not  been  deprived  was  then  deemed  important,  if  not 
essential,  to  the  canonical  validity  of  the  ordination : 
otherwise,  the  warrant,  in  the  circumstances  of  that 
time,  would  never  have  embraced  three  Popish  bishops. 
But  not  one  of  the  bishops  who  had  not  been  deprived 
would  act.  And  hence  the  ordination,  from  necessity, 
not  of  choice,  was  performed  by  deprived  bishops. 

In  this  state  of  facts  then  the  objection  to  the  canoni- 
cal validity  of  Dr.  Parker's  archiepiscopal  ordination  is, 
that  it  was  performed  by  persons  who  had  been  legally 
deprived  in  the  preceding  reign,  and  had  not  been  re- 
stored. About  seven  years  afterward,  indeed,  the  matter 
was  brought  before  the  British  parliament,  both  houses 
of  which,  to  silence  clamor,  confirmed  the  ordination 
of  Parker,  and  the  ordinations  derived  from  him.  But 
be  it  remembered,  (1,)  that  this  only  proves  the  more 
strongly  the  seriousness  of  the  doubts  then  existing  as 
to  the  validity  of  what  had  been  done  ;  and,  (2,)  that 
the  confirmation  of  it  by  an  act  of  parliament  was,  after 
all,  but  a  lay  confirmation. 

*   Burnet's  Hist.,  &c.,  p.  193. 

t   History  of  tlie  Puritans,  vol.  i,  p.  181.  %  Ibid. 

10^ 


EPiSCOPxVL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  147 

Yet  farther: — In  another  part  of  his  work,  p.  149, 
Dr.  C.  argues  that  the  consent  or  intention  of  the  grantor 
is  necessary  to  the  vahdity  of  a  grant ;  and  builds  a 
similar  argument  on  the  understanding  of  the  grantee, 
at  the  time  of  receiving  the  grant.  Now  I  have  proved 
that  in  the  year  1547  the  English  bishops  took  out  epis- 
copal commissions  as  "  subaltern  to  the  king,"  and  to 
perform  all  the  parts  of  the  episcopal  function  in  his 
name,  and  as  his  delegates:^'  On  these  terms,  then,  epis- 
copal authority  was  both  granted  and  received,  and  it 
was  so  expressly  understood  and  agreed  by  both  parties 
at  the  time.  The  Protestant  bishops  among  these  w^ere 
deprived  in  the  succeeding  reign ;  and  when  they  took 
part,  in  the  year  1559,  in  the  ordination  of  Parker,  had 
never  been  legally  restored.  This  I  believe  to  be  the 
true  state  of  the  case,  and  shall  submit  it  to  the  reader's 
own  judgment  w'hether,  on  the  principles  by  wdiich  the 
deprived  bishops  held  their  commissions,  and  those  laid 
down  by  Dr.  C.  as  above  quoted,  the  episcopal  ordina- 
tion of  Dr.  Parker  was  clearly  and  perfectly  canonical 
and  valid. 

*  Burnet,  Book  ii,  pp.  4,  5. 


148  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

[  Unfinished  Remarks  on  Bishop  Onderdonh's  tract,  entitled 
"  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture."] 

In  passing  to  Dr.  Onderdonk's  tract,  the  first  remark 
I  have  to  make  is,  that  it  is  essentially  defective  in  not 
furnishing  at  the  outset  a  clear  definition  of  the  precise 
import  which  he  attaches  to  the  term  "  episcopacy."  The 
manner  in  which  he  evidently  avails  himself  of  tlie  vague- 
ness of  this  term  throughout  his  tract  renders  his  whole 
argument  fallacious,  and  a  mere  sophism.  The  ground 
on  which  he  proposes  to  build  his  argument  is  other- 
wise excellent,  and  exactly  that  on  which  we  desire  to 
meet  all  opponents;  viz.,  "the  Scriptural  evidence  of 
episcopacy."  Equally  excellent  is  the  principle  by 
which  he  ag-rees  that  the  discussion  oug-htto  be  restricted, 
viz.,  that  "  no  argument  is  worth  takino^  into  account  that 
has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the  clear  and  naked  topic^ 
— the  Scriptural  evidence."  I  regret  exceedingly,  there- 
fore, that  it  did  not  occur  to  Dr.  O.,  or  else  that  he  did 
not  find  it  convenient,  or  think  it  expedient,  or  even  ne- 
cessary in  order  to  a  fair  issue,  to  state  with  candour 
and  precision  what  he  means  by  a  term  of  such  funda- 
mental importance  in  the  discussion  as  to  involve  within 
itself,  it  would  seem,  some  one  specific  frame  of  polity^ 
of  -universal  and  perpetual  obligation,  by  Divine  autho- 
rity, on  the  whole  church  of  Christ  on  earth.  This 
capital  defect  at  the  very  commencement  of  Dr.  O.'s 
offer  of  an  issue  in  the  argument  is  the  more  to  be  re- 
gretted, because  he  undoubtedly  knows,  not  only  that 
the  term  "  episcopacy"  is  a  very  vague  one  in  itself, 
but  that  it  is  very  variously  understood,  not  only  by  dif- 
ferent denominations  of  Christians,  but  by  different 
classes  of  the  same  denomination,  and  even  within  his 
own.  The  Romanists  have  an  "  episcopacy ;"  the 
Church  of  England,  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal,  and 
some  others,  an  "  episcopacy  ;"  and  high  and  low  church 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  149 

Episcopalians  among'  tliemselves  ;  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal have  an  "  episcopacy  ;"  nay,  Presbyterians  admit 
and  contend  for  "  episcopacy."  And  I  know  not,  in- 
deed, any  denomination  that,  in  some  form  and  to  some 
extent  or  other,  does  not  both  recognise  the  principle 
and  practise  the  thing,  viz.,  some  species  of  ministerial 
superiority, — graduated  or  otherwise, — in  a  superintend- 
ing care,  charge,  government,  inspection,  or  oversight 
of  a  church  or  churches. 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  with  great  deference,  that 
it  is  Dr.  O.  himself  who  inflicts  the  "  forensic  injustice" 
of  complicating  this  "  plain  topic,"  by  making  up  an 
issue  so  perfectly  vague  and  indefinite  that  it  may  be 
widened  or  narrowed,  stretched  or  shortened  at  conve- 
nience, as  circumstances  dictate, — to  mean,  in  fact, 
almost  just  any  thing  or  nothing. 

If  by  "  episcopacy"  be  meant  that  high-church  scheme 
of  ecclesiastical  polity  which  maintains  that  there  are 
three,  and  only  three,  essentially  distinct  ministerial 
orders,  divinely  ordained  to  be  universally  and  perpetu- 
ally binding  on  the  church  of  Christ,  so  that  without 
them  there  can  be  no  true  church  or  valid  Christian 
ministry  or  ordinances,  and  that  of  these  three  orders 
the  episcopal,  as  inherently  and  essentially  distinct  and 
supreme  by  Divine  appointment  and  right,  has  alone 
and  exclusively  the  power  and  authority  to  ordain  other 
ministers, — and  that  all  this  is  apparent  from  God's  own 
word,  as  an  essential  part  of  the  Christian  revelation : — 
then  we  understand  the  issue,  and  are  prepared  to 
meet  it. 

I  must  here,  however,  do  Dr.  O.  the  justice  to  say, 
and  I  do  it  with  pleasure,  that  from  this  issue  he,  at 
least,  blenches  ;  and  in  so  doing,  as  I  humbly  conceive, 
he  clearly  gives  up  the  essence  of  the  high-church 
cause,  and  confesses  it  to  be  untenable.  It  ought  not 
to  be  forgotten,  moreover,  that  this  respectable  prelate, 
the  "  assistant  bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 


150  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED- 

in  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,"  wrote  after 
Dr.  C,  with  his  book  before  him,  and  probably  under- 
stood the  subject  at  least  as  well  as  the  medical  gentle- 
man just  named,  and  was  evidently  as  much  disposed 
to  press  the  high-church  pretensions  to  as  great  an  ex- 
tent as  he  conscientiously  could.  Yet  this  more  candid, 
more  liberal,  or  better  informed  opponent,  with  all  his 
manifest  predisposition  and  bias  to  the  other  side,  felt 
himself  bound  to  say  that  those  who  "maintain  that 
episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church,"  assert 
an  "  extreme  opinion,"  to  which  he  "  subscribes  not."^ 

Inconsistent,  however,  as  Dr.  O,  is,  in  admitting  that 
episcopacy,  in  his  sense  of  it,  is  not  essential  to  the 
being  of  a  church,  and  yet  maintaining  that  "  no  plea," 
not  even  that  of  "  necessity,"  will  justify  a  departure 
from  it, — I  shall  proceed  with  an  examination  of  the 
process  by  which  he  reaches  his  conclusions.  And  in 
doing  so,  I  must  give  notice,  once  for  all,  that  in  speak- 
ing of  episcopacy  as  advocated  by  him,  I  do  it  always 
in  the  high-church  sense,  with  the  single  exception 
above  named,  as  to  its  indispensableness  to  the  being 
of  a  church. 

Another  fatal  fallacy  which  lurks  at  the  very  founda- 
tion of  Dr.  O.'s  argument  is  the  indefinite  phrase  under 
cover  of  which  he  would  introduce  the  absolutely  im'pe-- 
rative  character  of  episcopacy  as  a  duty  of  moral  obli- 
gation, in  obedience  to  a  Divine  ordinance.  "  If  episco- 
pacy [he  says]  be  set  forth  in  Scripture,  it  is  the  ordi- 
nance of  God ;  and  the  citizens  professing  Christianity 
are  individually  bound  to  conform  to  it."t 

If  it  be  "  set  fortli''  in  Scripture  !  How  convenient  a 
phrase  !  and  why  used  ?  WTiy  not  say  plainly.  If  it  be 
commanded  in  Scripture  ?     Obviously,  because  it  is  well 

*   Paffe  5.      [A  note  in  the  MS.  here  indicates  that  the  author  intended  to 
Insert  something  corres|)onding  to  what  may  be  found  on  p.  10. — Ed.] 
t  Page  4, 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  151 

known  that  it  is  not  so.  And  why  then  should  we  la- 
bour and  exert  even  the  utmost  ingenuity  of  sophistry 
itself  to  make  the  commandment  broader  than  it  is  ?  Is 
it  not,  as  it  stands,  "exceeding  broad," — exactly  as  it 
should  be,  having  neither  redundancy  nor  defect?  Who 
then  hatli  required  it  at  our  hands  to  add  to  it,  and  to 
narrow  the  very  covenant  mercies  of  the  Father  of  mer- 
cies 1  May  there  not  be  danger  on  this  side  as  well  as 
on  the  other?  And  where,  at  least,  there  is  so  much 
doubtfulness  and  difference  of  opinion  among  confess- 
edly wise  and  good  men,  as  to  either  extreme,  is  not  a 
medium,  as  before  said,  the  more  probable  and  safer 
ground  ? 

The  very  subtile  (I  say  not  subtle)  and  almost  imper- 
ceptible manner  in  which  Dr.  O.  would  lead  his  readers, 
step  by  step,  through  the  gradations  of  his  argument, 
from  the  slenderest  premises,  is  indeed  worthy  of  the 
"  forensic"  ingenuity  of  a  special  pleader.  At  a  subse- 
quent stage,  he  takes  the  ground,  interrogatively,  that 
"  a  mere  hi7it  or  intimation  contained  in  Scripture,  (always 
excepting  what  refers  to  things  or  circumstances  de- 
clared to  be  transient,  or  such  in  their  nature,)  though 
it  have  not  the  force  of  an  express  command,  is — suffi- 
ciently binding  on  every  servant  of  God.""^  And  although 
at  one  time  he  distinctly  disallows  "  that  episcopal 
claims  itnchurch  all  non-episcopal  denominations,"  and 
admits  that  such  may  be  worthy  professors  of  the  true 
religion,  accepted  of  God  through  the  Saviour,  and  not 
only  not  inferior  to  "  the  church,'''  but  even  superior  to  it 
in  both  moral  and  spiritual  character,  yet  in  the  very 
next  paragraph  he  assumes  that  those  same  "  episcopal 
claims"  can  be  sufficiently  proved  from  Scripture,  to 
make  their  rejection  "  a  clear  contravention  of  the  word 
of  God,''  pp.  6,  7.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  denied 
that  there  is  even  any  "  hint  or  intimation"  in  Scripture 

•  Page  10. 


152  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

that  it  is  ''  the  Divine  will"  that  high-church  episcopacy 
should  be,  universally  and  perpetually,  the  morally 
obligatory  constitution  of  all  Christian  churches.  And 
it  is  affirmed,  on  the  other  hand,  that  there  are  very 
many  hints  and  intimations  from  which  the  contrary 
may  be  most  fairly  inferred.  And,  in  the  second  place, 
the  very  resort  to  mere  hints  and  intimations,  by  a  dis- 
putant of  such  ability,  and  so  well  read  in  Scripture, 
seems  a  sufficient  indication  that  he  was  himself  con- 
scious of  the  extreme  scantiness  of  any  better  Scripture 
proofs,  and  consequently  of  the  extreme  questionable- 
ness  and  narrowness,  to  say  the  least,  of  the  foundation 
on  which  he  would  rear  his  weighty  fabric. 

In  regard  to  Dr.  O.'s  illustrations  of  Scripture  hints 
or  illustrations,  his  interpretation  of  some  is  denied,  and 
the  appositeness  and  force  of  others.  He  says,  for  ex- 
ample,— "  St.  Paul  says  of  the  Gentiles, '  These,  having 
not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves  :'  they  had  not 
the  positive  revealed  law,  yet  the  light  of  nature,  which 
only  intimates  what  we  ought  to  do,  but  does  not  spe- 
cifically prescribe  it,  was  '  a  law'  to  them,  having  suffi- 
cient obligation  to  make  its  suggestions  their  duty,  and 
to  give  those  suggestions  full  authority  in  '  their  con- 
science :'  and  surely  the  hints  recorded  by  the  Deity 
in  his  word  are  not  inferior  in  obligation  to  those  affi)rd- 
ed  in  his  works."* 

Now  (1,)  by  "the  law"  which  the  Gentiles  had  not, 
Rom.  ii,  14,  St.  Paul  evidently  meant  the  written  law, 
as  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  (2,)  he  says  no 
such  thing  as  that  "  the  light  of  nature"  "  afforded  in  his 
works" — the  works  of  Deity- — "  intimates  what  we  ought 
to  do,"  or  "  was  a  law  to  them," — the  Gentiles, — "  having' 
sufficient  obligation  to  make  its  suggestions  their  duty, 
and  to  give  those  suggestions /w//  authority  in  their  con- 
Bcience."    We  deny  this  whole  doctrine.    And  St.  Paul 

•  Page  10, 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  153 

plainly  shows  that  he  meant  no  such  thing,  by  adding 
immediately  in  the  next  verse,  "which  show  the  work  of 
the  law  7vritten  in  their  hearts  ." — by  the  very  same  hand, 
doubtless, — for  what  other  hand  could  do  it, — which 
engraved  the  commandments  on  the  tables  of  stone. 
This  was  to  them,  then,  a  jyositive  Divine  law, — their 
authoritative  rule  of  action  and  of  judgment,  which  they 
could  not  shght  or  violate  and  be  guiltless,  or  "  accepted 
with  God." 

As  an  illustration  of  his  position,  Dr.  O.  says : — 
"  There  is  no  record  of  a  command  to  observe  a  Sab- 
bath daring  the  whole  antediluvian  and  patriarchal 
ag-es  ;  will  it  then  be  alleged  that  the  mere  declaration 
that  God  *  blessed  and  sanctified  the  seventh  day'  did 
not  sufficiently  imply  that  it  was  the  Divine  will  that  the 
seventh  day  should  be  kept  holy  T* 

Does  Dr.  O.  seriously  intend  to  say,  then,  that  the 
sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  Divine  institution  is  not 
expressly  contained  in  the  very  words  of  the  institution 
as  recorded  by  the  inspired  historian  ?  The  original 
Hebrew  word  ty-ip,  rendered  in  our  version  sanctijied, 
(literally,  made  holy,)  in  the  Septuagint  is  iiytai^ev,  (of  the 
same  import.)  Buxtorf, — "  sacrari,  consecrari,  sancti- 
ficari,  sanctum,  sacrum  esse  vel  fieri."  Leigh's  Critica 
Sacra, — "  Ab  usu  communi  ad  divinum  separatus,  con- 
secratus,"  &c.  And  by  Parkhurst  (on  this  place) — 
"  To  set  apart,  separate,  or  appropriate  to  sacred  or  reli- 
gious purposes,  to  sanctify,  to  consecrated 

His  second  example  is  from  "  the  rite  of  sacrifice," 
respecting  which  he  asks  whether  "  the  record  of  the 
example  of  Abel  in  the  antediluvian  age,  and  of  those 
of  Noah,  Abraham,  &c.,  afterward,  were  not  sufficient 
intimations  from  God  that  to  offer  this  sacramental  atone- 
ment was  a  duty."  The  answer  to  this  is,  (1,)  That 
■without  a  direct  revelation  from  God  of  his  will  in  this 

*   Page  10. 


154  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

respect,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  idea  of 
offering  animals  in  sacrifice  as  a  sacramental  atone- 
ment would  ever  have  entered  into  the  mind  of  man,  or 
have  been  his  duty  :  and,  (2,)  that  hi  the  cases  of  Abel 
and  Noah,  the  Divine  pleasure  in  this  specific,  definite 
thing  was  explicitly  signified  :  and,  (3,)  that  in  the  case 
of  Abram  it  was  exijlicitly  commanded ;  see  Gen.  xv, 
9,  &c.  ;  and  the  command  contained  an  epitome  of  that 
very  law  of  sacrifices  afterward  more  fully  revealed 
through  Moses. 

His  third  example  is  from  the  creation,  for  each  other, 
of  one  man  and  one  woman  ;  and  it  is  asked  if  this  be 
not  a  sufficient  intimation  that  polygamy  is  contrary  to 
the  will  of  God.  With  our  present  light  this  would  seem 
so.  And  yet  this  is  an  unfortunate  example  for  Dr.  O.'s 
theory.  For  how  does  he  reconcile  it  with  the  practice 
of  polygamy  by  some  of  those  who,  under  that  dispen- 
sation, stood  highest,  nevertheless,  in  the  Divine  favour? 

His  fourth  is,  that  "  there  is  no  positive  command  for 
infant  baptism,"  and  yet  a  sufficiency,  "  whether  as  ex- 
amples or  as  intimations,"  to  authorize  it.  In  all  the 
arguments  for  infant  baptism  we  agree,  and  urge  them 
for  the  conviction  of  others.  But  we  think  it  is  also 
positively  commanded,  at  least  as  positively  as  female 
communion.  The  command  is  to  disciple  all  nations, 
which  Dr.  O.,  it  is  presumed,  will  agree  to  be  the  true 
import  of  the  original.  Matt,  xxvni,  19.  And  as  children 
are  a  part  of  all  nations,  and  may  be  discipled,  they  are 
as  clearly  embraced  in  the  command  as  females  are  in 
reference  to  the  communion  under  the  term  man.  And, 
corresponding  with  this  is  the  express  promise  annexed 
to  the  ordinance, — "  For  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to 
your  children,"  Acts  ii,  39  :  a  term  embracing  their  pos- 
terity certainly, — ^but  as  certainly,  in  our  estimation, 
their  offspring  then  living. 

His  fifth  is  in  regrard  to  the  change  of  the  day  of  rest 
and  devotion,  from  the  seventh  to  the  first.     Does  he 


EPISCOPAL    CONTRO\ERSY    REVIEWED.  155 

mean  to  say,  then,  that  the  moral  obhgation  consists  in 
the  observance  of  the  first  day  specifically,  or  of  a  se- 
venth part  of  time  :  in  other  words,  is  he  of  opinion 
that  there  are  sufficient  hints  in  Scripture  to  constitute 
the  former  a  Christian  law  of  universal  and  perpetual 
obligation,  the  neglect  of  which  would  be  sinful,  even 
where  the  latter, — the  seventh  day  for  example, — the 
laws  of  any  country  allowing  it,  should  be  sacredly  and 
conscientiously  observed  ? 

But  if  Dr.  O.'s  rule  be  a  good  one,  it  ought  to  admit 
of  being  carried  through :  and  if  it  be  found  to  prove 
too  much,  it  must  be  allowed  to  be  good  for  nothing. 
The  objection  that  monarchy  is  "  set  forth"  in  Scripture, 
as  well  as  episcopacy,  he  has  answered  in  a  note, 
pp.  43,  44.  But  some  of  the  very  points  made  in  that 
answer  justify,  I  think,  some  other  objections,  to  which 
I  do  not  perceive  how  that  answer,  or  any  other  on  his 
principles,  can  satisfactorily  be  applied.  He  says,  for 
example,  that  monarchy,  being  an  ordinance  of  man, 
might  be  changed  by  man ;  and  when  the  objector  urges 
farther  that  the  Deity  himself  gave  a  king  to  Israel,  he 
answers  that  it  was  "  in  anger."  Suppose  then  we  take 
(1,)  the  case  of  a  national  church — a  national  ecclesi- 
astical establishment ;  and,  (2,)  a  corresponding  esta- 
blishment by  law  of  the  system  of  tithes.  Such,  indis- 
putably, were  the  institutions  which  Jehovah  ordained 
for  his  ancient  church  and  people, — and  certainly  not 
in  anger.  And  high  churchmen,  moreover,  and  Dr.  C. 
especially,  very  strenuously  and  boldly  insist  upon  it 
that  "  what  Aaron  and  his  sons  were,  bishops  and 
priests  now  are."  If  this  analogy  be  a  correct  one,  is  it 
not  a  pretty  strong  "  intimation"  of  what  ought  to  follow, 
and  the  "  hint"  that  a  national  establishment  and  tithes 
are,  agreeable  to  the  Divine  will,  as  clearly  "  set  forth" 
in  Scripture  as  some  others  of  Dr.  O.'s  "examples?" 
In  one  of  his  notes,  p.  44,  he  says, — "  It  has  been  said 
that  the  appointment  of  a  king  for  Israel  by  the  Deity, 


156  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

is  an  intimation  of  the  Divine  will  in  favour  of  royal  go- 
vernment, and  that  therefore  that  form  of  civil  maf^is- 
tracy  must  he  as  binding  as  episcopacy.  We  reply,  (he 
continues,)  that  if  such  an  intimation  of  the  Divine  will 
existed,  it  would  unquestionably  be  binding  on  Chris- 
tians." He  then  proceeds  to  show  that  this  was  not  the 
fact,  because  a  king  was  given  to  them  "  in  anger,"  in 
consequence  of  their  perverseness  and  ambition  in  in- 
sisting on  having  one.  But  this  reasoning  does  not  at 
all  apply  to  the  national  church  establishment  and  tithes, 
which,  according  to  Dr.  O.'s  doctrine  of  intimations  and 
his  reasoning  upon  it,  must  be  binding  on  Christians, 
and,  consequently,  conformity  to  these  intimations  can- 
not be  refused,  in  nations  professing  Christianity,  "m 
foro  conscienticB,  animoque  integro^ 

Again :  Was  it  not  sufficiently  intimated  under  the 
Levitical  economy,  that  priests  ought  not  to  enter  the 
service  of  the  sanctuary  till  thirty  years  of  age,  and  that 
they  ought  to  be  discharged  at  fifty?  Did  not  our  Lord 
give  an  example  in  his  own  case  of  not  entering  on  the 
work  of  the  ministry  till  thirty  years  of  age ;  and  of 
washing  the  disciples'  feet  ?  Is  there  not  a  sufficient  in- 
timation of  the  Divine  approbation  of  the  community  of 
goods  in  the  first  Christian  church  :  and  in  choosing  an 
apostle  by  lot :  Paul's  circumcising  Timothy  :  the  taking 
of  illiterate  men  from  the  common  occupations  of  life  for 
apostles  and  ministers  ? 

Other  examples  might  be  adduced,  but  for  the  present 
I  shall  rest  this  part  of  the  cause  with  these. 

In  order  to  prove  the  duty  of  obedience  to  wicked  and 
worthless  priests  and  bishops.  Dr.  O.  alleges  that  saying 
of  our  Lord,  "  The  scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses' 
seat,"  &c.,  Matt,  xxiii,  2.  It  should  be  observed,  how- 
ever, (1,)  That  our  Lord  simply  states  the  fact,  ''they 
sit,"  &c.,  or  rather,  they  "sat;"  for  in  the  Greek  the 
verb  is  in  the  past  tense.  (2,)  That  they  occupied  that 
seat  by  national  authority  ;  and  so  far  obedience  was  due 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  157 

to  them  as  a  national  constitution,  and  as  readers  of  the 
law  and  of  the  prophets.  But  that  he  did  not  mean  to 
say  that  those  wicked  men  among  them  who  then  occu- 
pied it,  did  so  by  Divine  appointment  or  with  the  Divine 
approbation,  or  that  the  people  were  bound  to  render 
them  unlimited  obedience,  is  manifest  from  his  own 
heavy  denunciation  of  them  in  that  same  chapter,  and 
elsewhere,  as  a  very  generation  of  vipers,  charging  them 
with  even  making  void  the  law  of  God  through  their 
traditions  and  teaching,  that  they  shut  up  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  against  men,  and  made  their  proselytes  even 
doubly  more  the  children  of  hell  than  themselves.  If, 
therefore.  Dr.  O.  could  ever  allege  Scripture  for  the  mere 
fact  that  "  bishops,"  whether  by  national  law,  usage,  or 
usurpation,  ''  sit  in  the  apostles'  seats"  still,  if  they  be 
such  a  generation  as  those  scribes  and  Pharisees  were, 
making  their  proselytes  even  doubly  more  the  chil- 
dren of  hell  than  themselves,  and  making  void  the  law, 
&c.,  we  should  say  that  they -ought  to  be  denounced  as 
our  Lord  denounced  those  whited  sepulchres  of  that  day, 
and  the  people  taught  to  beware  of  them,  and  placed  as 
soon  as  practicable  under  the  guidance  of  better  teachers 
than  those  "  fools  and  blind,"  however  learned,  &c.  But 
Dr.  O.  produces  no  such  scripture  as  that  "  bishops  sit 
in  the  apostles'  seats. ""^  And  for  such  a  "  claim" — a 
claim  which  asserts  for  bishops,  however  wicked  and 
worthless,  erroneous  in  doctrine,  and  fatally  corrupting 
in  morals — the  place  of  infallible  guides,  as  the  apostles 
were,  to  whom  universal,  perpetual,  implicit  obedience 
is  due,  no  authority  short  of  a  direct  and  positive  "  thus 
saith  the  Lord,"  can  be  allowed  ;  nor,  indeed,  does  such 
a  thing  seem  possible,  without  imputing  sin  and  contra- 
diction to  the  Deity  himself 

As  to  Balaam,  although  he   prophesied   the    truth, 
though  himself  "  a  wicked  man,"  yet  Dr.  O.  certainly 

*  Page  5. 


158  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED- 

knows  who  hath  said,  "  Ma7uj  will  say  to  me  in  that  day, 
Lord,  Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name,  &c., 
and  then  wdll  I  profess  unto  them,  /  never  knew  you; 
depart  from  me,"  &c.,  I  never  appointed,  approved,  nor 
acknowledged  you  as  mine. 

In  regard  to  the  farther  plea  for  the  obligation  on  the 
people  to  continue  in  subjection  to  wicked  priests,  and 
in  communion  with  wicked  churches,  from  the  fact  that 
"the  sons  of  Eli,  bad  as  they  were,  ceased  not  to  be 
priests,"  and  that  "  the  Israelites  at  large  were  often  cor- 
rupt and  idolatrous,"  yet  "  never  lost  their  standing  as 
the  earthly  and  visible  church,  till  their  dispensation  was 
superseded  by  that  of  the  Gospel  ;"^  there  are  two  an- 
swers:  the  first  is,  that  the  Jewish  institution  was  of  a 
mixed  character,  being  national  and  political,  as  well  as 
ecclesiastical ;  and  the  priests  were  such  by  hereditary 
descent,  which  Dr.  O.  might  just  as  well  allege  as  a  suf- 
ficient intimation  that  it  ought  to  be  so  still.  But  the 
Christian  dispensation,  being  designed  for  the  whole  race 
of  man,  and  to  be  perpetual,  is  wholly  spiritual,  having 
no  connection  with  any  political  or  national  establish- 
ment whatever.  "  My  kingdom,"  said  its  Founder  em- 
phatically, "  is  not  of  this  world ;"  and  hence  the  polity 
of  a  Jewish  politico-ecclesiastical  institution,  and  the 
precedents  tolerated  under  it,  have  no  binding  force  what- 
ever, since  that  dispensation  has  been  totally  abolished, 
and  is  now  "  superseded"  by  another,  wholly  pure  and 
spiritual. 

The  second  answer  is,  that  Dr.  O.'s  argument  would 
have  been  an  admirable  one  for  the  papal  hierarchy  at  the 
era  of  the  Reformation,  and  if  it  be  a  just  and  conclusive 
one,  demonstrates  that  the  Church  of  England  and  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  are  schis- 
7natical,  and  ought  to  have  continued  in  communion  with 
"  the   Church"  which  then  was,  though  all  its  priests 

*  Page  5. 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  159 

should  even  have  been  as  bad  as  the  sons  of  Eli,  and  the 
Church  "  at  large,"  like  the  priests,  "  corrupt,"  and  even 
"  idolatrous  :"  such  seems  to  me  to  be  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  Dr.  O.'s  argument,  if  a  good  one  ;  that  there- 
fore the  champions  of  Rome  ought  not  to  have  been 
"  worsted  by  the  extraneous  argument"  of  the  glorious 
reformers,  founded  on  the  corruptions,  the  oppressions, 
the  false  doctrines,  (like  those  of  the  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees who  sat  in  Moses'  seat,  making  void  the  command- 
ments of  God  by  their  tradition  and  teaching,)  or  even 
the  idolatrous  character  of  the  Church  at  large,  and  the 
"  detestable  enormities  of  its  bishops  and  priests."  The 
argument  certainly  proves  too  much  for  the  Protestant 
cause,  and,  if  a  conclusive  one,  ought  manifestly  to 
drive  us  all  back  to  "  the  Church"  from  which  our  pre- 
decessors so  wickedly  separated. 

In  proceeding  to  the  second  department  of  his  essay, 
"  an  exhibition  of  the  Scriptural  evidence  relating  to  this 
controversy,"  Dr.  O.  professes  to  "begin  by  stating  the 
precise  point  at  issue."  This,  he  says,  is  "  between  two 
systems  only,  episcopacy,  and  parity,  or  the  Presbyte- 
rian ministry  :"^  and  by  "  parity,"  he  states  that  he 
means  that  system  which  "  declares  that  there  is  but 
one  order"  of  men  authorized  to  minister  in  sacred 
things.  We  beg  leave  to  repeat,  therefore,  that  between 
high  church  and  us,  this  is  not  the  issue.  There  is  a 
third  or  middle  system,  which  is  that  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  polity.  This  system  not  only  admits  but 
maintains  the  doctrine  of  two  orders,  strictly  considered, 
and  a  third  degree,  or  grade,  officially  superior  in  execu- 
tive authority  and  jurisdiction  to  the  body  of  presbyters 
out  of  which  and  by  which  it  is  constituted.  To  this 
officially  superior  order,  in  a  more  general  sense  of  this 
term,  is  committed,  according  to  this  system,  also  the 
exclusive  and  actual  authority  to  ordain,  the  general 
supervision,  whether  in  a  smaller  or  larger  diocess,  and 

•  Page  11. 


160  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

the  chief  administration  of  spiritual  discipline,  besides 
enjojing  all  the  powers  of  the  other  grades.  Yet  one 
cannot  go  so  far  with  Dr.  O.  as  to  say,  ''If  we  cannot 
authenticate  the  claims  of  the  episcopal  office,  we  will 
surrender  those  of  our  deacons,  and  let  all  powder  be 
confined  to  the  one  office  of  presbyters.'^" 

So  far  as  we  are  concerned,  then.  Dr.  O.'s  statement 
of  the  issue  is  a  mere  begging  of  the  question.  The 
true  issue  between  him  and  us  is,  Is  ordination  by  pres- 
byters, in  any  exigence  and  under  any  and  all  circum- 
stances, wholly  incompatible  with  episcopacy,  in  the  Scrip- 
tural sense  of  that  term  or  thing,  and  in  itself,  by  God's 
word,  unlawful  and  void  1  Tlie  affirmative  of  this  ques- 
tion is  what  Dr.  O.  has  to  sustain,  if  his  argument  is  to 
have  any  bearing  on  us ;  and,  in  this  view  of  it,  I  pro- 
ceed to  an  examination  of  his  scripture  proofs. 

It  is  proper  here  to  premise,  however,  and  I  beg  the 
reader  to  bear  it  in  mind,  that  as  Dr.  O.  distinctly  admits 
that  there  may  be  true  Christian  churches  without  epis- 
copacy, it  follows  necessarily  either  that  episcopacy  is 
not  essential  to  the  validity  of  ordination  to  the  ministry, 
or  that  there  may  be  true  Christian  churches,  (and  if 
some,  why  not  all,)  7vitliout  any  ministers  at  all.  An  ar- 
gument so  incongruous  must  have  some  flaw,  however 
ingeniously  it  may  be  concealed. 

At  the  outset  of  this  "second  department"  of  his  essay, 
Dr.  O.  frankly  concedes  that  the  name  "  bishop,"  in  Scrip- 
ture, is  given  to  presbyters,  and  that  "  all  that  we  read 
in  the  New  Testament  concerning  '  bishops,'  (including 
of  course  the  words  '  overseers'  and  '  oversight,'  which 
have  the  same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertain- 
ing to  that  grade,"  viz.,  the  order  of  presbyters.  "  The 
highest  grade  he  [continues]  is  there  found  in  those 
called  '  apostles,'  and  in  some  other  individuals,  as  Titus, 
Timothy,  and  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  in  Asia 

*  Pasre  11. — A  note  in  the  MS.  indicates  that  it  was  intended  here  also 
to  insert  from  page  10,  ante. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  161 

Minor,  who  have  no  official  desio^nation  g-iven  them.  It 
was  after  the  apostoKc  age  [he  adds]  that  the  name 
'bishop'  was  taken  from  the  second  order  and  appro- 
priated to  the  first,  as  we  learn  from  Theodoret,  one  of 
the  fathers."* 

How  is  this  ?  After  such  a  preliminary  flourish  of 
trumpets,  long  and  loud,  about  going  into  Scripture 
alone  with  the  naked  question,  freed  from  all  extraneous 
considerations,  and  exclusively  of  all  other  sources  of 
authority  or  argument,  we  find  ourselves,  at  the  very 
start,  referred  to  "  Theodoret,  one  of  the  fathers  !"  What 
fathers  ?  Peter  we  know,  and  Paul  we  know  ;  but  in 
this  issue,  as  offered  by  Dr.  O.  himself,  who  is  Theo- 
doret ?  Whatever  he  may  be  elsewhere,  he  is  an  intru- 
der here,  and  cannot  be  suffered  to  say  one  word,  good 
or  bad,  on  either  side. 

In  his  note  on  the  same  place,  Dr.  O.  refers  to  "  Vi- 
delius"  also,  in  support  of  the  same  position.  We  pro- 
test against  his  admission  also,  whether  he  be  episcopal 
or  non-episcopal.  We  demand  a  clear  field ;  the  field 
chosen,  proposed  by  Dr.  O.  himself — the  Scripture 
alone  :  and  if  he  find  not  there  sufficient  for  his  pur- 
pose, without  aid,  direct  or  incidental,  from  any  other 
quarter  whatever,  his  only  alternative  is  to  give  up  the 
contest.  The  very  fact  of  his  flying  off  to  such  ''  extra- 
neous aid,"  is  sufficient  indication  that  he  was  sensible 
of  the  difficulty,  if  not  the  impossibility,  of  connecting 
his  chain  without  it.  He  must  assume  something,  or  go 
out  of  Scripture,  or  inevitably  fail,  as  we  believe,  to 
make  out  his  case. 

This  course  on  the  part  of  Dr.  O.  is  the  more  surpris- 
ing, as  he  himself  had  previously  said  of  certain  unin- 
spired authorities  referred  to,  "  We  reject,  therefore,  this 
whole  extraneous  appendage  of  the  controversy  before 
us ;"  and  then  adds,  "that  the  rule  applies  to  the  fathers, 
as  much  as  to  later  ornaments  of  the  church."!     Is  it 

*Page  19.  t  Pages  8,  0. 

11 


162  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

not  passing  strange,  then,  that  withm  a  few  pages  after- 
ward, he  should  himself  attempt  to  avail  himself  of  the 
authority  of  one  of  those  very  fathers — nay,  a  father  of 
the  fifth  century,  and  a  'prelate  too ! 

No  evidence  then  of  any  thing  that  was  "  taken  from" 
the  order  of  presbyters,  "  after  the  apostolic  age,"  whe- 
ther in  name  or  otherwise,  can  be  admitted  in  the  argu- 
ment before  us.  This  would  be  to  travel  out  of  the 
Scripture  record ;  and  by  that  record  alone  this  cause 
must  be  tried. 

Again :  Within  a  few  sentences  afterward.  Dr.  O. 
says,  "  The  original  meaning  of  bishop  was  only  a  pres- 
byter, but  the  name  passed  from  that  middle  grade  to 
the  highest.""^  Here  again  we  must  stop  him,  unplea- 
sant and  inconvenient  as  it  may  be.  There  is  no  such 
evidence  in  the  record,  and  he  must  not  travel  out  of  it. 
His  assumption,  or  mere  gratuitous  assertion,  (for  the 
statement  amounts  to  nothing  more,)  can  no  more  be 
allowed,  under  this  issue,  than  the  evidence  of  Theo- 
doret. 

The  name  "  bishop,"  then,  being  given  up  by  Dr.  O. 
as  meaning,  in  Scripture,  no  higher  order  than  presby- 
ter, his  next  resort  is,  to  see  "  if  we  can  find  the  thing 
sought,  i.  e.,  an  office  higher  than  that  of  presbyters  or 
elders."t 

If  this  be  "the  thing  sought,"  there  neither  is  nor  can 
be  any  controversy  on  the  subject.  That  there  are  in 
the  New  Testament  higher  offices  mentioned  than  that 
of  mere  presbyters  or  bishops,  I  presume  no  one  can 
think  of  questioning.  But,  unfortunately  for  Dr.  O.'s 
system,  his  argument  again  proves  too  much.  If  one 
higher  office  can  be  proved  by  it,  most  assuredly  several 
can ;  and  consequently,  on  this  basis,  more  than  three 
orders  must  necessarily  be  admitted.  For  example,  to 
repeat  a  passage  above  quoted  from  Dr.  O.,  in  which  he 
says,  "  the  highest  grade  is  there  found  [in  the  New 

*  Page  12.  t  Ibid. 

11* 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  163 

Testament]  in  those  called  apostles,  and  in  some  other 
individuals,  as  Titus,  Timothy,"  &c.  Now  (to  say 
nothing  at  present  of  the  angels  of  the  Asiatic  churches, 
about  whom  the  Scriptures  give  us  so  little  information) 
does  any  unsophisticated  reader  of  the  New  Testament, 
who  has  no  system  or  purposes  of  party  to  serve,  believe 
that  any  ''  other  individuals"'  exercised  the  same  office 
that  the  apostles  did?  Rejecting  all  regard  to  mere 
names,  and  looking  at  things  and  facts,  can  any  thing  be 
plainer  than  that  the  offices  of  Titus  and  Timothy,  for  in- 
stance, (as  Dr.  O.  names  these  particularly)  were  inferior 
to  that  of  Paul  ?  Thus  much  on  this  point  here,  by  the 
way.     It  will  be  resumed  hereafter. 

In  another  place.  Dr.  O.  says  of  the  word  "  bishop," 
"  In  Scripture,  it  means  a  presbyter,  properly  so  called ; 
out  of  Scripture,  according  to  the  usage  next  to  univer- 
sal of  all  ages  since  the  sacred  canon  was  closed,  it 
means''^ — Dear  sir,  you  must  be  pleased  to  excuse  us 
for  interrupting  you  so  frequently — no  "  usage,"  any 
more  than  other  testimony  "  out  of  Scripture"  has  any 
place  here,  and  you  cannot  be  allowed  to  introduce  it  : 
you  yourself  have  given  the  challenge  to  test  this  ques- 
tion by  Scripture  alone,  and  to  that  you  must  confine 
yourself,  or  acknowledge  yourself  "  worsted." 

As  to  the  "  fact  of  the  existence  of  episcopacy"  in 
Scripture, — that  is  to  say,  that  there  was,  in  the  apos- 
tolical age,  an  official  oversight  both  of  churches  and 
ministers,  with  us  there  is  no  dispute.  We  admit,  and 
maintain,  as  fully  as  Dr.  O.  does  or  can,  that  the  apos- 
tles, in  common,  did  exercise  such  an  oversight — an 
itinerant  general  superintendency  over  the  whole 
church,  which  was  an  itinerant  general  episcopacy  in 
fact;  and  that  others  under  them  did  exercise  a  subor- 
dinate oversight  by  their  appointment  and  direction  ; 
this  we  grant  with  all  readiness  and  pleasure,  as  we 
shall  do  whatever  does  appear  in  the  Scripture,  lead  us 

*Page  12. 


164  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

where  it  may.  We  agree,  moreover,  that  it  is  a  fair 
inference  from  this  fact,  that  an  official  itinerant  general 
oversight,  both  of  churches  and  ministers,  is  agreeable  to 
the  apostolical  practice.  But  that  the  office  and  authority 
of  the  apostolate  itself  have  been  transmitted,  by  divine 
appointment,  to  any  order  of  men  since  the  apostles,  we 
affirm  to  be  a  mere  assumption,  unsupported  by  any 
thing  in  Scripture,  or  that  can  be  logically  inferred 
from  it. 

Dr.  O.  takes  great  pains  to  prove,  what  I  apprehend 
no  one  denies,  that  there  was  originally  a  sacred  office, 
viz.,  that  of  the  apostles,  superior  to  that  of  elders  or 
presbyters  ;  '•'  and  this  [he  adds]  is  substantiating  nearly 
the  whole  episcopal  claim. ""^' 

Is  it  possible,  then,  that  this  is  the  amount  of  what 
Dr.  O.  has  been  labouring  through  sixteen  pages  to 
accomplish?  Why,  if  he  had  simply  stated  this  proposi- 
tion at  the  outset,  it  would,  I  presume,  have  been  uni- 
versally admitted ;  at  least  it  certainly  would  by  lis. 
And  yet  it  is  so  far  from  "  substantiating  nearly  the 
whole  episcopal  claim,"  of  those  who  arrogantly  assert 
that  they  occupy  now,  by  divine  right  and  title,  the 
identical  office  which  the  apostles  did  while  on  earth  in 
the  age  of  inspiration,  that  it  is  not  even  a  single  hair's 
breadth  advance  toward  it.  So  far  as  Scripture  testimony 
alone  is  concerned,  (and  in  the  argument  now  before  us 
nothing  else  can  be  admitted,)  the  theory  that  those  now 
called  bishops  are  successors,  by  divine  appointment,  to 
the  apostolate  itself,  as  it  was  held  and  exercised  by  the 
apostles  personally  in  their  lifetime,  under  a  direct  com- 
mission from  the  Lord  Jesus  in  person,  is  a  mere  bare- 
faced hypothesis,  an  utterly  gratuitous  assumption, 
against  taking  which  for  granted  "  all  sound  reasoning 
protests."  That  the  establishment  of  this  high  "  episco- 
pal claim,"  on  the  part  of  himself  and  others,  is,  how- 
ever, absolutely  essential  to  Dr.  O.'s  argument,  if  he  do 

*   Page  16. 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  165 

not  mean  to  trifle  with  his  readers,  is  perfectly  manifest: 
and  yet  how  is  he  to  make  it  out  from  Scripture,  and 
Scripture  alone  ?  To  any  one  acquainted  with  Scripture 
is  it  not  as  plain  as  the  brightest  shining  of  the  mid-day 
sun,  that  it  is  impossible  to  do  it  ?  and  that  Dr.  O.  has 
therefore  undertaken  an  absohitely  impossible  task? 

In  preparing  for  the  above  conclusion,  Dr.  O.  seems 
solicitous  to  enlarge  the  original  college  of  apostles  by 
embracing  within  it  several,  who,  strictly  speaking,  in 
regard  to  the  thing,  the  primary  apostolate,  distinctively 
understood,  have  no  title  to  be  placed  in  that  rank.  .  In 
a  former  part  of  his  essay,  indeed,  when  it  seemed  sub- 
servient to  his  purpose,  he  was  careful  and  ready 
enough  to  insist  that  "  irregularity  in  titles  and  desig- 
nations is  of  so  frequent  occurrence,  yet  occasions  so 
little  actual  confusion,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  viewed  as 
a  real  difficulty  in  the  case  before  us.*  Exactly  so,  say 
we,  in  the  present  instance.  It  is  the  thing  we  seek, — 
the  proper,  distinctive,  original  apostolate,  —  not  the 
mere  name  apostle, — which  Dr.  O.  undoubtedly  knows 
is  variously  used  in  Scripture,  and  sometimes  in  its 
simple  etymological  sense,  to  signify  a  mere  messenger 
on  any  occasion  or  mission  whatever.  Thus  St.  Paul 
says  to  the  Philippians,  (ii,  25,)  that  Epaphroditus, 
their  messenger,  [Gr.  KnoaToXov,  apostle,]  had  ministered 
to  his  wants.  Examples  need  not  be  multiplied ;  as  it 
is  believed  that  no  intelhgent  and  candid  reader  of  the 
New  Testament,  both  in  the  Greek  and  English,  will 
dispute  that  this  term  is  sometimes  used  there  in  its 
lower,  common  sense.  Yet,  as  Dr.  O.  himself  well  re- 
marks of  some  other  names,  "  this  confusion  is  but  appa- 
rent, there  is  no  real  or  practical  difficulty"  in  the  case  ; 
a  familiar  acquaintance  M'ith  the  Scriptures,  with  even 
a  moderate  degree  of  attention  and  care,  will  enable 
almost  any  reader  to   distinguish  readily    the   proper 

*  Page  13. 


166  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

apostolical  office,  in  its  highest  distinctive  sense,  inde- 
pendently of  mere  names. 

When  Dr.  O.  argues,  therefore,  that  "  the  apostles 
were  not  thus  distinguished  because  they  were  appointed 
by  Christ  personally  ;  for  some  are  named  '  apostles'  in 
Scripture  who  were  not  thus  appointed,  as  Matthias, 
Barnabas,  and  probably  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
all  ordained  by  merely  human  ordainers  :  Silvanus  also, 
and  Timothy,  and  besides  Andronicus  and  Junia  others 
could  be  added,"  he  evidently  violates  the  just  principle 
by  .which  he  wishes  to  restrict  opponents,  and  argues 
from  the  mere  name,  without  due  regard  to  the  proper 
distinctions  of  things. 

With  regard  to  Matthias,  in  what  manner  Dr.  O. 
would  make  out  that  he  was  not  appointed  by  Christ 
personally,  but  was  "  ordained  by  merely  human  ordain- 
ers," does  not  appear.  He  gives  us  barely  his  own  as- 
sertion for  it ;  which  cannot  be  admitted  as  Scripture 
evidence.  The  testimony  of  that  record,  on  the  con- 
trary, is,  that  previously  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when 
the  vacancy  in  the  apostolate  occasioned  by  the  apos- 
tacy  and  death  of  Judas  was  to  be  filled,  Peter  stood 
up,  and  after  an  introductory  statement,  said,  "  Where- 
fore of  these  men  which  have  companied  with  us  all 
the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us, 
beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  that  same  day 
that  he  was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be  ordained  to 
be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection.  And  they  ap- 
pointed two,  Joseph  called  Barsabas,  who  was  surnamed 
Justus,  and  Matthias.  And  they  prayed,  and  said,  Thou, 
Lord,  which  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men,  show  whe- 
ther of  these  two  thou  hast  chosen,  that  he  may  take 
part  of  this  ministry  and  apostleship,  from  which  Judas 
by  transgression  fell,  that  he  might  go  to  his  own  place. 
And  they  gave  forth  their  lots,  and  the  lot  fell  upon  Mat- 
thias, and  he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven  apostles."* 

*  Acts  i,  31-26. 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  167 

The  word  "  ordained,"  in  the  22d  verse  of  the  above 
passage,  may  possibly  mislead  such  readers  as  are  not 
able  to  examine  the  passage  in  the  original  Greek. 
Such  as  are  able  to  do  so,  however,  will  be  convinced, 
I  am  persuaded,  by  a  moment's  inspection,  that  there 
is  no  word  there  in  the  Greek  which  can  with  any 
propriety  be  rendered  "  ordained,"  in  the  present  ordi- 
nary acceptation  of  the  term.  The  words  in  the 
Greek,  as  constructively  connected  in  the  21st  and 
22d  verses,  are  An  ysveaeai, — must  be.  That  any  ec- 
clesiastical rite,  "  by  mere  human  ordainers,"  such  as 
imposition  of  hands,  &c.,  was  used  on  that  occasion 
in  the  appointment  of  Matthias  to  fill  the  vacancy 
in  the  apostolate,  there  is  not  one  single  particle  of 
evidence.  On  the  contrary,  after  Peter's  express  men- 
tion of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  a  preceding  verse,  the  in- 
spired record  continues,  "  And  they  prayed  and  said, 
Thou,  Lord,  which  knowest  the  hearts  of  all,  show 
whether  of  these  two  tpiou  hast  chosen,  that  he  may 
take  part  of  this  ministry  and  apostleship,  .  .  .  and  they 
gave  forth  their  lots,  and  the  lot  fell  upon  Matthias,  and 
he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven  apostles :" — obvi- 
ously (if  we  take  this  record  alone  for  our  guide,  as  in 
this  argument  we  must,)  without  any  farther  ceremony, 
or  the  interposition  of  any  "mere  human  ordainers" 
about  it.  The  case  was  referred,  for  that  peculiar  ex- 
traordinary ofiice,  to  the  direct  personal  appointment  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  himself  This  Matthias  had,  in  common 
with  the  other  eleven  who  then  composed  the  apostolic 
college.  That  it  was  signified  by  "  the  lot"  does  not  at 
all  alter  the  case ;  for  whatever  was  the  specific  mode 
of  that  lot,  of  which  the  record  does  not  inform  us,  it  is 
plain  on  the  face  of  the  account  that  the  apostles  re- 
ferred its  result  to  the  infallible  decision  of  the  Lord 
himself;  and  that  theij  believed  that  He  himself  did  so 
decide  that  result ;  and  therefore,  without  another  word 


168  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

or  farther  act  on  the  subject,  according  to  the  record, 
Matthias  "  was  numbered  with  the  eleven  apostles." 

Should  Dr.  O.,  however,  persist  in  insisting  that  Mat- 
thias was  ordained  to  the  apostolate  "by  mere  human 
ordainers,"  it  seems  to  me  that  he  will  inevitably  in- 
volve himself  in  the  heresy  of  lay  ordination,  even  to 
the  very  highest  ecclesiastical  office.  For  let  any  plain, 
unbiased  reader  carefully  examine  the  whole  account, 
and  we  will  cheerfully  submit  it  to  his  judgment  whe- 
ther, whatever  of  mere  human  agency  there  was  in  the 
ordination  of  Matthias  to  that  office,  it  was  not,  so  far 
as  the  record  gives  us  any  information,  participated  in 
by  the  whole  of  the  one  hundred   and  twenty  disciples. 

In  regard  to  Barnabas,  there  is  by  no  means  clear  evi- 
dence that  lie  was  an  apostle,  in  the  highest  sense  of 
this  term,  as  the  twelve  and  Paul  were.  The  contrary 
opinion  is  held  by  eminent  critics,  and  seems  the  more 
probable  one.  From  a  case  so  doubtful,  therefore,  no- 
thing can  be  inferred  with  certainty.  The  manner  in 
which  Dr.  O.  himself  says,  "  probably  James  the  bro- 
ther of  the  Lord,''  shows  his  own  uncertainty  as  to  the 
identity  of  this  pei*son,  or  the  propriety  of  placing  him 
in  this  class ;  and  it  will  therefore  be  as  useless  as  it  is 
unnecessary  to  discuss  the  question  respecting  him,  on 
which  the  most  eminent  critics  are  so  much  at  variance. 

But  why  need  I  go  through  the  list,  since  Dr.  O.  ob- 
viously takes  advantage  merely  of  the  name  without 
regard  to  the  thing  implied  in  the  apostolical  office  in  its 
distinctive  and  highest  sense.  As  to  Andronicus  and 
Junia,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  they  were  ever  named 
apostles  in  any  sense.  Rom.  xvi,  7,  is,  to  say  the  least, 
a  very  doubtful  passage  as  to  that  point.  Junia  may 
even  have  been  the  name  of  a  woman,  the  wife  of  An- 
dronicus, for  avyyevEii,  rendered  himmen  in  our  version, 
signifies  relatives  in  general,  whether  male  or  female. 
And  that  they  were  "  of  note  among  the  apostles,"  most 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  169 

probably  means  nothing  more  than  that  they  were  highly 
esteemed  by  them. 

Silas  was  a  chief  man  "  among  the  brethren,"  and  "  a 
faithful  brother,"  as  Peter  supposed.^  And  that  Timo- 
thy was  subject  to  the  directions  of  St.  Paul,  and  offi- 
cially inferior  to  him,  is  too  plain  to  be  disputed.  To 
attempt,  therefore,  as  Dr.  O.  does,  to  class  among  "  apos- 
tles," distinctively  and  properly  so  called,  persons  whom 
he  alleges  to  have  been  "  ordained  by  mere  human 
ordainers,"  for  the  sake  of  establishing  the  position  that 
those  now  called  bishops  occupy  by  divine  right  the 
same  office,  is  to  exalt  the  episcopate  at  the  expense  of 
the  apostolate,  and  thereby,  just  in  the  same  proportion 
as  this  is  done,  to  diminish  the  credit  and  the  autho- 
rity of  Christianity  itself 

The  following  observations  on  this  subject  from  the 
pen  of  Dr.  Campbell,  are  so  much  in  point  that  I  sub- 
mit tliem  entire  to  the  consideration  of  the  reader. — 

"  Many,  indeed,  convinced  . . .  that  it  is  in  vain  to  search 
for  the  office  of  bishop,  as  the  word  is  understood  by 
moderns,  in  those  ministers  ordained  by  the  apostles  in 
the  churches  which  they  founded,  have  referred  us  for 
its  origin  to  the  apostolate  itself  I  have  passingly  ob- 
served already  that  this  was  one  of  those  extraordinary 
offices  which  were  in  their  nature  temporary,  and  did 
not  admit  succession.  But  this  point,  as  so  much  stress 
is  laid  upon  it,  w^ill  deserve  to  be  examined  more  par- 
ticularly. 

"  The  apostles  may  be  considered  in  a  twofold  view, — 
either  in  their  general  character  as  the  first  pastors  of. 
the  church  and  teachers  of  the  Christian  faith,  or  in 
what  is  implied  in  their  special  character  of  apostles  of 
Jesus  Christ.  In  the  first  general  view  they  are  doubt- 
less the  predecessors  of  all  those  who,  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  shall  preach  the  same  gospel  and  administer  the 
same  sacraments,  by  whatever  name  we  distinguish 
them,  bishops,  priests,  or  deacons, — overseers,  ciders, 


170  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED. 

or  ministers.  But  the  question  still  recurs,  whether, 
agreeably  to  the  primitive  institution,  their  successors, 
in  respect  of  the  more  common  character  of  teachers 
and  directors  of  the  churches,  should  be  divided  into 
three  orders  or  only  into  two?  To  presume,  without 
evidence,  that  the  first  and  not  the  second  was  the  fact, 
is  merely  what  logicians  call  a  petitio  principii,  taking 
that  for  granted  which  is  the  very  point  in  dispute. 
But  if  it  be  alleged,  that  not  in  the  general  character  of 
teachers,  but  in  their  special  function  as  apostles,  the 
bishops  are  their  proper  successors,  the  presbyters  and 
deacons  being  only  the  successors  of  those  who  were 
in  the  beginning  ordained  by  the  apostles,  this  point 
will  require  a  separate  discussion.  And  for  this  pur- 
pose your  attention  is  entreated  to  the  following  remarks. 

"  First,  the  indispensable  requisites  in  an  apostle  suffi- 
ciently demonstrate  that  the  office  could  be  but  tempo- 
rary. It  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  one  who  had 
seen  Jesus  Christ  in  the  fiesh  after  his  resurrection^ 
Accordingly  they  were  all  especially  destined  to  serve 
as  eye-witnesses  to  this  world  of  this  great  event,  the 
hinge  on  which  the  truth  of  Christianity  depended. 
The  character  of  apostle  is  briefly  described  by  Peter, 
who  was  himself  the  first  of  the  apostolical  col- 
lejre,  as  one  ordained  to  be  a  witness  of  Christ's 
resurrection.  Acts  i,  22 ;  a  circumstance  of  which  he 
often  makes  mention  in  his  speeches,  both  to  the  rulers 
and  to  the  people.  See  Acts  ii,  32;  iii,  15;  v,  32;  x, 
41 ;  xiii,  31.  And  if  so,  the  office,  from  its  nature  and 
desio-n,  could  not  have  an  existence  after  the  extinction 
of  that  generation. 

"  Secondly,  the  apostles  were  distinguished  by  prero- 
galives  which  did  not  descend  to  any  after  them.  Of 
this  kind  was,  first,  their  receiving  their  mission  imme- 
diately from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  not  mediately  through 
any  human  ordination  or  appointment :  of  this  kind,  also, 
was,  s'-condly,  the  power  of  conferring,  hy  imposition  of 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  171 

hands,  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit  on  whomsoever 
they  would ;  and,  thirdly,  the  knowledge  they  had,  by 
inspiration,  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ.  It  was  for 
this  reason  they  were  commanded  to  wait  the  fulfilment 
of  the  promise  which  their  Master  had  given  them,  that 
they  should  be  baptized  w'ith  the  Holy  Ghost.  What 
pains  does  not  Paul  take  to  show  that  the  above-men- 
tioned marks  of  an  apostle  belonged  to  him  as  well  as 
to  any  of  them !  That  he  had  seen  Christ  after  his  re- 
surrection, and  was  consequently  qualified,  as  an  eye- 
witness, to  attest  that  memorable  event,  he  observes, 
1  Cor.  ix,  1 ;  xv,  8 ;  that  his  commission  came  directly 
from  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father,  without  the  in- 
tervention of  any  human  creature,  he  acquaints  us.  Gal. 
i,  1 ;  ii,  6.  To  his  conferring  miraculous  powers  as  the 
signs  of  an  apostle,  he  alludes,  2  Cor.  xii,  12  ;  and  that 
he  received  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel,  not  from  any 
other  apostle,  but  by  immediate  inspiration,  Gal.  i, 
11,  &c. 

"  Thirdly,  their  mission  was  of  quite  a  different  kind 
from  that  of  any  ordinary  pastor.  It  was  to  propagate 
the  gospel  throughout  the  world,  both  among  Jews  and 
Pagans,  and  not  to  take  charge  of  a  particular  flock. 
The  terms  of  their  commission  are,  '  Go  and  teach  all 
nations  ;'  again,  '  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature.'  No  doubt  they  may  be 
styled  bishops  or  overseers,  but  in  a  sense  very  differ- 
ent from  that  in  which  it  is  applied  to  the  inspector  over 
the  inhabitants  of  a  particular  district.  They  were  uni- 
versal bishops ;  the  whole  church,  or  rather  the  whole 
earth,  was  their  charge,  and  they  were  all  colleagues 
one  of  another.     Or,  to  give  the  same  sentiment  in  the 

words  01  C/hrySOStom,  Yagcv  vtto  deov  x^ifiOTovrjdtvTec  anoaroXoi  apxov- 
Tff,  ovK  edvi)  Kat  TTo2.ei(  diadopovr  ?.a/x3avovTec,  a^^^a  iravTcg  koivt/  ttjv  ockov- 
fievTjv   efiniarevdevTer.     *  Tho    apOStlcS  WCrO  COUStitutcd   of  God 

rulers,  not  each  over  a  separate  nation  or  city,  but 
all  were  intrusted  wilh  the  world  in  common.'     If  so, 


172  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED- 

to  have  limited  themselves  to  any  thing  less  would  have 
been  disobedience  to  the  express  command  they  had 
received  from  their  Master,  to  go  into  all  nations,  and  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  If,  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  lives  of  any  of  them,  they  were,  through  age 
and  infirmities,  confined  to  one  place,  that  place  would  na- 
turally fall  under  the  immediate  inspection  of  such.  And 
this,  if  even  so  much  as  this,  is  all  that  has  given  rise  to 
the  tradition  (for  there  is  nothing  like  historical  evidence 
in  the  case)  that  any  of  them  were  bishops  or  pastors  of 
particular  churches.  Nay,  in  some  instances  it  is  plain 
that  the   tradition  has  orio-inated  from  this  sinsfle  cir- 

o  o 

cumstance,  that  the  first  pastors  in  such  a  church  were 
appointed  by  such  an  apostle.  Hence  it  has  arisen  that 
the  bishops  of  different  churches  have  claimed  (and 
probably  with  equal  truth)  to  be  the  successors  of  the 
same  apostle. 

"  Fourthly,  and  lastly.  As  a  full  proof  that  the  matter 
was  thus  universally  understood,  both  in  their  own  age 
and  in  the  times  immediately  succeeding,  no  one  on  the 
death  of  an  apostle  was  ever  substituted  in  his  room ; 
and  when  that  original  sacred  college  was  extinct,  the 
title  became  extinct  with  it.  The  election  of  Matthias 
by  the  apostles,  in  the  room  of  Judas,  is  no  exception, 
as  it  w^as  previous  to  their  entering  on  their  charge. 
They  knew  it  was  their  Master's  intention  that  twelve 
missionaries,  from  among  those  who  had  attended  his 
ministry  on  earth,  should  be  employed  as  ocular  wit- 
nesses to  attest  his  resurrection,  on  which  the  divinity 
of  his  religion  depended.  The  words  of  Peter  on  this 
occasirn  are  an  ample  confirmation  of  all  that  has  been 
said,  both  in  regard  to  the  end  of  the  office  and  the 
qualifications  requisite  in  the  person  who  fills  it,  at  the 
same  time  that  they  afford  a  demonstration  of  the  ab- 
surdity as  w^ell  as  arrogance  of  modern  pretenders. — • 
'  Wherefore  of  these  men  which  have  companied  with 
us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and   out 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  173 

among  us,  beginning'  from  the  baptism  of  John  unto  that 
same  day  that  he  was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be 
ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection.' 
But  afterward,  when  the  apostle  James,  the  brother  of 
John,  was  put  to  death  by  Herod,  as  recorded  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  find  no  mention  made  of  a  suc- 
cessor. Nor  did  the  subsequent  admission  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  to  the  apostleship  form  any  exception  to  what 
has  been  advanced  ;  for  they  came  not  as  successors  to 
any  one,  but  were  especially  called  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  apostles,  particularly  to  the  Gentiles  ;  and  in  them, 
also,  were  found  the  qualifications  requisite  for  the  tes- 
timony which,  as  apostles,  they  were  to  give."^ 

The  remark  of  Dr.  O.  that  "  neither  were  the  apos- 
tles thus  distinguished  because  they  had  seen  our  Lord 
after  his  resurrection,  for  five  hundred  brethren  saw 
him,"t  is  a  very  singular  one.  Certainly,  it  was  never 
meant  that  all  who  had  thus  seen  him  were  therefore 
apostles,  but  that  none  could  be  apostles  who  had  not 
thus  seen  him. 

Again :  he  says,  "  And  though  the  twelve  apostles 
were  selected  as  special  witnesses  of  the  resurrection, 
yet  others  received  that  appellation  who  were  not  thus 
selected,  as  Timothy,  Silvanus,  Andronicus,  Junia, 
&c.,"t  received  that  appellation!  True  ;  as  to  some  at 
least  of  those  named.  But  the  mere  "  appellation"  is 
not  the  tiling  we  seek :  and  why  does  Dr.  O.  thus  con- 
tinue to  endeavour  to  press  into  his  service  a  mere  name, 
against  the  principle  by  which  he  wishes  to  restrict  his 
opponents.  The  Saviour  himself  is  styled  in  Scripture 
"  the  apostle"  of  our  profession  :  and  from  his  receiv- 
ing this  "  appellation,"  it  would  seem,  according  to 
Dr.  O.'s  use  of  this  name  in  the  argument,  that,  of 
course,  He,  and  Andronicus,  and  Junia  were  of  the 
same  order,  and  held  identically  the  same  office, 

•  Page  75-78.  f  Page  15.  |  Ibid. 


174  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

"  Nor  were  the  apostles  [be  continues]  thus  distin- 
guished because  of  their  power  of  working  miracles  ; 
for  Stephen  and  Phihp,  who  were  both  deacons,  are 
known  to  have  had  this  power.""^  But  the  apostles  had 
also  the  farther  powder  of  conferring  the  same  gift  on 
others. 

But  why  does  Dr.  O.  separate  the  characteristics  as- 
signed as  distinctive  of  the  apostolate  ?  No  one  pre- 
tends that  amj  one  of  the  grounds  he  names  was  the 
sole  ground  of  distinction,  as  his  mode  of  arguing  im- 
plies ;  but  that  there  was  a  combination  of  the  signs  of 
an  apostle,  to  be  found  in  those  to  whom  [the]  appella- 
tion was  appropriate  in  its  highest  distinctive  sense,  and 
in  none  else.  When,  therefore,  he  adds,  "It  follows, 
therefore,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned,  that  the 
apostles  were  distinguished  from  the  elders  because 
they  were  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and 
rights,"! — if  he  means,  as  it  would  seem  he  does,  that 
that  single  circumstance  was  the  whole  and  sole  ground 
of  their  entire  and  peculiar  distinction,  it  is  not  only 
"  questioned,"  but  flatly  denied.  If,  indeed,  this  notion 
of  Dr.  O.'s  be  correct,  and  the  matter  was  so  under- 
stood by  St.  Paul  and  the  Corinthian  church  in  his 
day,  is  it  not  surprising  that,  instead  of  the  course  he 
took  to  convince  them  of  the  legitimateness  of  his  claim 
to  the  apostleship,  it  did  not  occur  to  him  to  say,  "  Am 
not  I  superior  to  an  elder,  and  therefore,  of  course,  an 
apostle  ?" 

•X- 


Page  15.  tibid. 


^ 

^ 

■X- 

* 

* 

f: 

* 

■* 

* 

¥i 

* 

* 

* 

* 

■X 

EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  175 


APPENDIX. 


[The  remarks  embraced  in  this  Appendix  appear  to  have  been  written 
separately  by  the  author,  with  a  view  of  incorporating  them  afterward  in 
their  appropriate  places  in  the  Essay.  They  are  added  here,  because  the 
editor  desires  to  present  the  subject  just  as  it  was  left  by  the  author,  imper- 
fect as  it  may  be. — Ed.] 


The  confidence  with  which  Dr.  Cooke,  though  so  recent  a  convert  to  this 
high  notion,  undertakes  to  unchurch,  as  it  is  termed,  all  those  denominations 
who  deny  the  necessity  or  the  existence,  in  lineal  descent,  of  the  three 
ministerial  orders  which  he  describes  as  essentially  distinct  by  divine  right, 
may  justify  a  brief  inquiry  here  into  the  just  and  Scriptural  import  of  the 
term  "  church." 

The  term  itself,  as  well  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  writings  of  the  an- 
cient Christian  authors  as  in  modern  use,  has  different  significations,  accord- 
ing to  the  subject  to  which  it  is  applied.  The  Greek  word  generally  ren- 
dered church  in  the  New  Testament  is  eKKATjaia,  and  signifies  either  (1,)  any 
civil  assemblage  of  people,  lawful  or  unlawful ;  or,  (2,)  when  used  in 
reference  to  the  disciples  of  Christ,  the  whole  Christian  community  through- 
out the  world  ;  or,  (3,)   the  Christian  community  in   any  particular  place, 

as  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  of  Antioch,  &c.  It  has  been  supposed  also  by 
some,  in  a  few  passages  of  Scripture,  to  signify  the  place  where  any  Chris- 
tian society  or  congregation  assembled, — though  other  able  critics  doubt  this. 
There  are  other  accommodated  significations  of  the  term,  which  need  not  be 
here  specified.  But  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  mention  that  this  term  is  never 
used  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  singular  number  in  reference  to  Christians, 
unless  when  either  the  church  universal  is  meant,  or  some  particular  church 
in  a  single  place.  When  more  than  one  particular  church  is  intended,  but 
less  than  the  whole,  the  plural  form  of  the  word  is  always  adopted  ; — as  the 
churches  of  Galatia,  of  Asia,  of  Macedonia,  &c.  A  national,  provincial,  or 
diocesan  church,  in  the  singular,  as  the  term  is  now  used,  is  an  application 
of  it  altogether  unknown  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  Christian  writers 
of  the  first  two  centuries,  with  the  exception  of  two  passages  in  the  epistles 
attributed  to  Ignatius,  which  will  be  hereafter  mentioned.  In  conformity  with 
this  statement,  one  bishop,  in  the  most  ancient  usage,  was  uniformly  con- 
sidered as  having  charge  of  only  one  cKKAi/aia,  one  church,  in  the  singular ; 
the  extent  of  which  was  designated  by  the  Greek  word  napoiKta,  in  Latin 
parochia,  or  paroecia,  which  answers  to  the  English  word  parish,  and 
means  strictly  and  properly  a  neighbourhood.  His  charge  was  never  deno- 
minated in  those  early  days  dioKyair,  a  diocese.  This  term  was  not  used  for 
this  purpose  till  after  the  Iap.se  of.  some  centuries,  when  the  bishop's  charge 
had  become  so  far  extended  as  to  embrace  wuthin  it  many  churches  and 
parishes. 


176  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

In  relation  to  this  subject,  Dr.  C.  has  some  singular  criticisms  on  the  ex- 
tent of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  in  the  apostolic  age,  of  vvliich  I  am  here 
reminded. — "  In  Jerusalem,"  he  says,  "  there  were  three  thousand  persons 
added  to  the  church  on  the  first  day  the  gospel  was  publicly  preached,  after 
the  ascent  of  our  Lord  :  and  when  Paul  went  there  from  Ephesus  there  was 
an  innumerable  company  of  Christians.  When  he  went,  on  his  arrival,  to  see 
James,  all  the  presbyters  being  present,  they  said  unto  him.  Thou  seest  how 
many  tens  of  thousands  of  Jews  there  are  which  believe.  The  words  in 
our  translation  are,  thou  seest  how  many  thousands  :  but  in  the  original  it 
is  muriades,  jnyriads,  tens  of  thousands:''''  p.  154.  Afterward,  p.  156, 
assuming  as  proved  what  he  had  before  asserted,  viz.,  that  these  "many 
myriads," — even  "  an  innumerable  company''''  of  Christians,  belonged  at  that 
early  period  to  the  church  in  Jerusalem  alone, — he  adds,  "  Hoiv  many  tens 
of  thousands  of  believers  there  were  in  Jerusalem  when  Paul  went  there  we 
cannot  exactly  say,  but  it  is  indisputable  that  there  were  many ;  let  us  sup- 
pose ybtn-  only."  That  is  to  S3,y,  forty  thousand  only,  as  a  moderate  calcu- 
lation, then  statedly  belonging  to  the  church  of  Jerusalem  alone;  for  that 
this  is  his  meaning  I  take  to  be  plain  from  the  introduction  to  his  criticisms, 
section  394. 

But  did  not  the  doctor  forget  that  "  the  multitude"  from  among  whom  the 
three  thousand  were  converted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  composed  of 
"  Parthians,  and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia, 
and  in  Judea,  and  Cappadocia,  in  Pontus,  and  x'Vsia,  Phrygia,  and  Pamphylia, 
in  Egypt,  and  in  the  parts  of  Lybia  about  Cyrene,  and  strangers  of  Rome,  Jews 
and  proselytes,  Cretes,  and  Arabians  1"  Accordingly,  when  Peter  addressed 
them,  he  said,  "  Ye  men  of  Judea,  and  all  ye  that  dwell  at  Jerusalem, — more 
strictly  (6t  KaToiKowTec)  that  sojourn  at  Jerusalem, — for  a  large  portion  of 
the  hearers,  as  the  context  demonstrates,  were  not  inhabitants  of  Judea  itself, 
much  less  of  the  city  alone.  They  were  the  strangers  mentioned  in  verses 
9,  10,  11,  who  had  come  to  the  feast  from  the  numerous  and  widely  scattered 
countries  there  specified.  Is  it  reasonable  then  to  suppose  that  the  entire 
number  of  the  converts  was  from  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  itself; 
or  that  ail  the  converted  sojourners  continued  there  afterward,  as  permanent 
members  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem"?      This  is  to  me,  at  least,  a  new  idea. 

He  seems  to  have  forgotten,  also,  that  when  Paul  visited  Jerusalem,  as 
stated  in  the  other  passage  which  he  cites,  (Acts  xxi,)  it  was  again  during 
the  feast  of  Pentecost,  (as  is  proved  by  Acts  xx,  16,)  on  which  occasion  it 
is  well  known  that  a  vast  concourse  of  Jews  from  all  quarters,  Christians  as 
well  as  others,  who  were  then  still  "  all  zealous  of  the  law,"  (v.  29,)  re- 
sorted to  Jerusalem,  and,  consequently,  that  the  "  many  myriads"  here 
spoken  of  can  by  no  principle  of  rational  interpretation  be  confined  to  the 
Jewish  believers  who  were  stated  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  alone,  but  must  be 
understood  to  include  those  also  who  came  to  the  feast  from  the  most  distant 
and  various  places.  Indeed  the  passage  Acts  xxi,  20,  seems  to  me  in  all 
fairness  and  propriety  of  construction  to  include  not  merely  the  Jewish  believ- 
ers then  present  at  the  feast,  from  whatever  place,  but  all  the  Christian 
believers  of  that  class  wherever  scattered,  who,  whether  present  or  not, 
would  undoubtedly  hear,  through  those  who  were  present,  of  the  conduct  of 
Paul  ;  against  whom  very  many  of  them  were  already  greatly  prejudiced. 

In  proof  that  Dr.  C.  means  that  there  were  at  that  early  period  so  many 
myriads  of  Jewish  believers  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  who  statedly  attended 
Christian  worship  there,  I  need  only  cite  in  addition  the  minute  calculation 
he  makes  of  the  size  of  a  building  that  would  contain  ''  forty  thousand  per- 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  177 

sons"  "  in  such  a  parish  as  Jerusalem,"  besides  "  the  crowds  of  unbelievers 
who  continually  attended  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,"  p.  156. 

This  mode  of  managing  the  subject  reminds  me  of  an  argument  of  Dr. 
C.'s  in  another  place,  viz.,  in  that  long  chain  by  which  he  undertakes  to  esta- 
blish the  episcopate  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  One  of  the  links  is,  that  "  only 
five  days  elapsed  from  the  time  of  leaving  Troas  until  the  day  the  elders 
left  Ephesus  to  go  to  Miletus,  to  see  Paul."  But  how  is  this  proved  ?  WTiy 
simply  thus  : — the  distances  between  certain  places  are  first  judged  from  the 
map,  and  it  is  then  presumed, — in  a  voyage  at  sea,  and  in  the  state  of  navi- 
gation at  that  period, — that  equal  distances  are  sailed  in  equal  times,  and 
that  for  this  notable  reason,  "  the  general  course  being  the  same,  and  there- 
fore the  wind  equally  favourable,''''  p.  37.  Now  had  this  been  d.  steamboat 
excursion,  there  might  be  some  tolerable  ground  for  the  calculation, — bating 
accidents.  But  how  "  the  general  course  being  the  same,"  in  a  sailboat 
voyage  in  the  Mediterranean  some  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  supports  the 
positive  conclusion  that  "  therefore  the  wind  was  equally  favourable"  for 
four  days  successively,  I  know  not.  May  it  not  possibly  have  fallen  calm 
after  three  days  1  or  have  blown  less  freshly  1  or  veered  more  unfavourably? 
or  even  shifted  dead  a-head  ?  Does  not  the  merest  fresh-water  man  know 
that  a  distance  which  in  some  circumstances  may  be  sailed  in  a  day,  in  others 
may  require  a  week,  or  even  a  month  ]  At  least  one  would  think  this 
"  therefore,"  in  Dr.  C.'s  argument,  hardly  sufficient  for  one  who  "  had 
always  been  in  the  habit  of  requiring  strong  evidence  upon  every  subject, 
and  never  yielding  assent  to  any  thing"  without  it ;  and  certainly,  rather  too 
weak  to  constitute  any  part  of  a  foundation  for  such  a  system  as  he  labours 
to  build  upon  it.  Although,  allowing  such  criticisms  and  arguments  to  pass, 
with  what  facility  systems  may  be  reared,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand. 


II. 

The  vexed  question  respecting  the  original  form  of  government  in  the 
Christian  church,  though  not  unimportant,  is  certainly  of  no  such  consequence 
as  heated  disputants  on  any  side,  misled  by  party  prejudices  or  intemperate 
zeal,  would  affect  to  make  it.  The  declaration  of  St.  Paul  that  "  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  applicable  alike  to  every  thing  external  and  circumstan- 
tial ;  and  it  may  be  confidently  added,  as  the  apostle  continues,  "  for  he  that 
in  these  things  serveth  Christ  is  acceptable  to  God  and  approved  of  men." 

But  it  may  be  said,  perhaps,  that  this  is  begging  the  question  ;  for  the 
ultra  high-church,  and  Dr.  C.  among  the  most  forward  of  that  class,  in  bold, 
bigoted,  often  repeated,  and  e.xtravagant  assertions,  contends  that  the  form 
of  polity  is  not  a  thing  external  or  circumstantial,  but  of  the  very  essence  of 
a  true  church.  And  although  no  one  has  ever  yet  produced,  or  can  produce, 
a  single  passage  of  Scripture  which  plainly  teaches  this  doctrine, — a  thing 
most  marvellous  indeed  if  the  doctrine  be  true  ;  yet  it  is  urged  upon  us  over 
and  over  that  Ignatius  said  so,  a  venerable  bisliop,  father,  and  martyr,  and 
that  we  ought  to  believe  him, — especially  as  his  testimony  was  confirmed 
too,  as  Dr.  C.  asserts,  by  both  Polycarp  and  Irenffius,  also  venerable  fathers, 
thus  making  their  testimony  identical  with  his  ;  an  assertion  which  shall  be 
examined  hereafter.      Now,  in  the  first  place,  we  do  not  believe  that  Igna- 

12 


178  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED. 

tius  ever  did  say  so  ;  but  that  some  forger  of  a  later  age,  and  of  Dr.  C.'s 
sentiments,  said  it  for  him.  And  in  the  second  place,  if  he  even  did  say  it, 
— yet  if  he  or  an  angel  from  heaven  taught  any  doctrine  different  from  or 
inconsistent  with  the  gospel  as  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  we  would 
not  believe.  That  Scripture  and  tradition  combined  are  the  source  of  faith, 
is  the  doctrine  of  Rome,  not  of  Protestants.  The  doctrine  of  Protestants  is, 
that  the  Bible  alone  is  not  only  the  rule,  but  a  sufficient  rule,  both  of  faith 
and  practice.  Whatever  cannot  be  proved  from  this,  without  reference  to 
any  other  book,  or  to  any  tradition,  or  human  authority  whatever,  Protest- 
ants never  can  consistently  receive  as  an  article  of  faith.  And  if  Dr.  C. 
cannot  prove  without  going  out  of  Scripture,  that  "  there  is  no  church"  with- 
out the  three  orders  of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  as  essentially  dis- 
tinct and  essentially  necessary  by  Divine  appointment ;  then  his  argument. 
Dr.  Onderdonk  being  judge,  is  not  "  worth  taking  into  account." 

Now,  that  no  such  thing  can  be  proved /rom  Scripture,  many  of  the  very 
ablest  writers  on  the  Episcopal  side  have  over  and  over  admitted.  The 
celebrated  Dodwell,  the  very  champion  of  the  highest  order  of  high-church, 
in  the  case  of  the  nonjuring  bishops  in  the  reign  of  William  III.,  concedes 
that  all  the  reasoning  from  which  men  conclude  that  the  whole  model  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline  may  be  extracted  from  the  writings  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  quite  precarious  ;  that  there  is  no  passage  of  any  sacred  writer 
which  openly  professes  this  design ;  that  there  is  not  one  which  so  treats  of 
ecclesiastical  government  as  if  the  writer  or  the  writer's  author,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  had  intended  to  describe  any  one  form  of  polity  as  being  to  remain 
everywhere  and  for  ever  inviolate  ;  that  the  sacred  penmen  have  nowhere 
declared  with  sufficient  clearness  how  great  a  change  must  take  place  in 
church  government,  when  the  churches  should  first  withdraw  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  synagogues ;  that  they  nowhere  clearly  enough  show  how 
much  was  allowed  to  the  personal  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  how  much 
also  to  places  and  offices;  that  they  nowhere  with  sufficient  accuracy  distin- 
guish the  extraordinary  officers  who  were  [not]  to  outlive  that  age,  from  the 
ordinary  who  were  not  to  cease  till  the  second  coming  of  Christ ;  that  all 
the  things  then  generally  known  they  also  suppose  known,  and  never  for 
the  sake  of  posterity  explain,  minding  only  the  state  wherein  things  were  at 
the  time  ;  that  they  nowhere  professedly  describe  the  ministries  themselves, 
so  as  to  explain  either  their  nature  or  their  extent ;  which  was  surely  indis- 
pensable if  they  meant  to  settle  a  model  in  perpetuity.* 

If  all  this  be  so,  as  every  one  who  reads  the  Bible  can  see  for  himself, 
<'  What  can  we  conclude,"  adds  Dr.  Campbell,  "  but  that  it  was  intended  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  thus  to  teach  us  to  distinguish  between  what  is  essential  to 
the  Christian  religion,  [and  to  a  true  church,]  and  what  is  comparatively  cir- 
cumstantial, regarding  external  order  and  discipline,  which,  as  matters  of 
expedience,  alter  with  circumstances,  and  are  therefore  left  to  the  adjust- 
ment of  human  prudence  ?  What  can  better  account  for  the  difference  re- 
marked by  Hoornbeck,  that  the  apostles  were  more  solicitous  about  the 
virtues  than  the  degrees  of  the  ministers,  and  more  strenuous  in  inculcating 
the  manners  to  be  observed  by  them  as  suitable  to  their  office,  and  conducing 
to  their  usefulness,  than  copious  in  describing  the  form  of  their  government  1 

*  I  give  the  entire  passage  as  rendered  by  Dr.  George  Campbell,  Lcct.  on  Eccles.  Hist., 
pp.  52,  53  ;  where  the  original  Latin  of  Dodwell  may  also  be  seen.  And  I  take  pleasure 
in  making  a  general  acknowledgment  here,  that  to  Dr.  Campbell,  one  of  the  ablest  and 
most  candid  critics  that  I  have  yet  seen  on  this  subject,  I  am  much  indebted  in  various 
parts  of  this  treatise. 

12^ 


EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED.  179 

The  one  is  essential,  the  other  only  circumstantial  ;  the  one  invariable,  the 
other  not." 

If  the  very  existence  of  a  church,  and  the  validity  of  the  ministry  and 
ordinances  of  the  gospel,  be  essentially  dependant  on  the  doctrine  maintained 
by  Dr.  Cooke,  might  we  not  most  reasonably  expect  to  find  it  so  plainly  re- 
vealed in  Scripture  that  he  who  runs  may  read  ?  How  else  can  the  perfec- 
tion of  Scripture  be  asserted  ?  that  it  is  of  itself  able  to  make  us  wise  unto 
salvation, — that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
every  good  work  ?  And  if,  moreover,  it  be  alleged  to  be  in  Scripture,  yet 
so  that  even  its  advocates  cannot  make  it  out,  confessedl}',  but  by  such  a  pre- 
carious chain  of  far-fetched  and  subtile  deductions  as  those  of  Dr.  Onder- 
donk;  and  still  more,  if,  before  the  chain  can  possibly  be  completed,  the  pro- 
found researches  of  antiquaries,  critics,  and  linguists  into  the  contradictory, 
the  doubtful,  and  the  disputed  volumes  of  the  fathers  have  to  be  resorted  to, 
does  not  this  of  itself  afford  a  strong  presumption  against  it  ■?  How,  then, 
may  it  be  said,  "  /  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because 
thou  hast  hidden  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  but  hast  revealed 
them  unto  babes .?" 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  high-church,  when  our  Lord  charged  his 
disciples  to  "  beware  of  false  prophets,"  he  ought  to  have  established  a  very 
different  criterion  by  which  to  judge  them.  He  ought  to  have  taught  us 
how  to  trace  their  spiritual  pedigree  ;  and  how  to  ascertain  whether  the  pre- 
tenders be  lineally  descended  from  an  apostle  or  an  apostolical  bishop,  through 
an  unbroken  scries  of  prelatical  ordinations.  Do  we  find  any  thing  of  this 
sort  in  Scripture  ^  Is  any  such  thing  even  intimated  or  hinted  ?  On  the 
contrary,  does  not  our  Lord  establish  a  test  entirely  different  ?  one  of  plain, 
common,  and  universal  application  ?  one  suited  to  the  "  poor"  and  ignorant^ 
for  whom  the  gospel  with  all  its  immunities  and  ordinances  was  specially 
designed,  as  well  as  for  the  learned.  "  Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits. 
Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of  thistles  ^  Even  so  every  good 
tree  bringeth  forth  good  fruit ;  but  a  corrupt  tree  bringeth  forth  evil  fruit.  A 
good  tree  cannot  bring  fortli  evil  fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth 
good  fruit.  Wherefore,  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them,"  Matt,  vii, 
16,  17,  18,  20. 

I  know  that  ultra  high-churchmen,  and  Dr.  C.  among  them,  dispute  the 
sufficiency  of  this  test,  and  attempt  a  course  of  argument  to  disprove  it. 
But  then  their  controversy  is  with  the  Master,  who  expressly  affirms  and  es- 
tablishes it.  And  whether  we  ought  to  believe  him  or  them,  the  reader 
must  judge.  According  to  them,  Alexander  VI.,  of  Rome,  and  other  similar 
worthies,  indispensable  links  in  their  chain  of  succession,  were  true  ministers 
of  Christ,  true  Christian  bishops  by  Divine  appointment,  while  Francis  Asbury, 
Adam  Clarke,  Richard  Watson,  and  the  brightest  luminaries,  living  or  dead, 
in  the  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  Baptist,  or  Methodist  churches,  must 
be  held  as  intruders  into  the  sacred  office,  and  no  ministers  of  Christ.  Be 
it  so,  by  their  test.  But  try  them  all  by  the  test  of  Christ,  and  what  will 
be  the  result  ?  Surely  a  writer  must  calculate  largely  on  the  ignorance  or 
the  superstition  of  his  readers  to  talk  of  establishing  such  a  theory  as  Dr.  C.'s 
at  the  present  day. 

When  our  blessed  Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  and  just  bfifore  his  ascen- 
sion, commissioned  his  apostles  to  go  into  all  the  world,  &c.,  he  added, 
*'  and  lo !  1  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  This 
promise,  we  are  often  told,  descends  to  all  the  true  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles in  the  gospel  ministry,  and  to  none  else.      It  is  granted  ;  and  by  this  tesj 


180  EPISCOPAL    CONTROVERSY    REVIEWED. 

also  we  are  willing  to  be  tried.  The  personal  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
flesh,  or  his  presence  in  miraculous  gifts  and  works,  I  suppose  is  nol  now 
pretended  by  any  Protestants.  It  remains  then  that  the  promise  is  to  be 
understood  of  his  spiritual  presence  in  the  personal  support  and  comfort  of 
his  ministers,  and  in  giving  sanction  and  success  to  their  efforts  for  the  con- 
version and  salvation  of  sinful  men  by  the  demonstrations  of  his  Spirit. — 
Are  the  prelatical  monopolizers  of  the  covenant  mercies  of  God,  and  the 
presence  of  Christ,  willing  that  plain  people  should  try  their  exclusive 
claims  by  this  test  1* 

"  Master,"  said  one  of  the  yet  imperfectly  instructed  apostles  to  Jesus, 
"  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in  thy  name,  and  we  forbade  him,  because 
he  followeth  not  us."  Jesus  answered,  "Forbid  him  not,  for  there  is  no 
man  who  shall  do  a  miracle  in  my  name  that  can  lightly  speak  evil  of  me. 
For  he  that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us."  That  contracted  spirit  of  exclu- 
sionism  which  regards  the  party,  the  cause  of  the  sect,  more  than  the  cause 
of  Christ,  is  not  yet  extinct.      Let  him  that  readeth  understand. 

St.  John  says,  "  Beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whe- 
ther they  are  of  God  ;  because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the 
world."  But  how  are  we  to  try  them  1 — by  a  learned  and  critical  investiga- 
tion of  the  truth  of  their  claim  to  an  uninterrupted  lineal  descent  from  the 
apostles,  through  a  long  line  of  baptisms  and  ordinations  of  a  specific  cha- 
racter 1  Do  the  Scriptures  anywhere  lay  down  such  a  test,  or  anywhere 
intimate  that  such  should  ever  be  adopted  ]  "  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony" 
then.  "  If  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no 
light  in  them."  This  was  the  legitimate  test  under  the  ancient  as  well  as 
the  present  dispensation.  A  very  different  one  is  now  deemed  requisite  by 
some  zealous  patronizers  of  an  exclusive  hierarchy.  Popish  or  Protestant. 

That  any  specific  form  of  church  government,  or  mode  of  authenticating 
ministers,  is  not  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church,  or  to  the  validity  of  the 
Christian  ministry  and  ordinances,  I  take  to  be  plainly  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  if  her  23d  article  be  not  framed  in  language  designedly 
ambiguous  and  deceptive,  which  ought  not  to  be  supposed.  That  article 
entitled,  Of  Ministering  in  the  Congregation,  says,  "  Those  we  ought  to 
judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which  be  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by 
men  who  have  public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congregation  to  call 
and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard."  This,  says  Ur.  Campbell,  if 
It  mean  any  thing,  and  be  not  a  mere  identical  proposition,  of  which  he  owns 
it  has  some  appearance,  refers  us  ultimately  to  that  authority,  however  mo^ 
delled,  which  satisfies  the  people,  and  is  settled  among  them. 

The  Episcopal  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland,  the  predecessors  of  tho 
high-church  nonjurors  in  that  country,  in  their  19th  article,  entitled.  Of  the 
Notrs  of  the   true  Kirk,  affirmed  that  "  they   [the  notes  or  marks   of  the 

*  It  is  rnlatctl  of  the  late  veneritlile  Dr.  Pilmoor,  of  Phitadflphia,  that,  aftor  he  had  ho.. 
come  a  minister  of  the  Protestant  Epi.scopal  Church,  he  was  in  a  hirge  mixed  company, 
among  whom  were  some  of  his  old  friends  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Uhnrch,  rather 
tauntingly  indulging  himself  in  self-gratulation  on  the  above-cilcd  promise  of  Christ's  pre- 
sence with  his  ministers  of  the  regular  apostolical  succession,  of  which  he  had  now  tho 
happiness  to  he  one.  An  old  friend,  who  had  often  heard  him  preach  in  the  demonstration 
of  the  Spirit  and  of  power,  when  he  was ,  a  plain  Methodist  preacher,  said  to  him: — 
"  Dr.  P.,  permit  me  lo  ask  you  one  ((uestion,  as  a  candid  Christian  man.  When  I  heard 
yon,  as  a  Methodist  preacher,  preach  to  the  multit\ide  on  the  race-ground,  the  judges* 
Ktand  heiiig  your  pulpit,  was  Christ  with  you  or  not  ?"  The  doctor  paiised,  and  then  cm-, 
phatically  answered,  "  Yes,  if  ever  he  has  been  with  me,  he  was  with  me  then."  His  old 
friend  was  satisfied,  and  so  were  the  company.  It  was  the  candid  confession  of  a  plain, 
lioiiest  paan, — which  plain,  honest  men  kjiew  how  to  appreciate. 


EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED.  181 

true  church]  are  neither  antiquity,  title  usurped,  lineal  descent,  place  ap- 
pointed, nor  multitude  of  men  approving  an  error."  Again,  article  23d, 
0/  the  right  Administration  of  the  Sacraments  : — "  that  sacraments  be 
rightly  ministrate,  we  judge  two  things  requisite  ;  the  one  that  they  be  minis- 
trate  by  lawful  ministers/,  whom  we  affirm  to  be  only  they  that  are  ap- 
pointed to  the  preaching  of  the  word,  they  being  men  lawfully  chosen 
thereto  by  some  kirk,  &c.  We  fly  the  doctrine  of  the  papistical  kirk  in 
participation  of  their  sacraments, — 1st,  Because  their  ministers  are  no  mi- 
nisters of  Christ  Jesus,"  &c.  Here,  continues  Dr.  Campbell,  not  only  is 
lineal  descent  expressly  excluded,  but  its  very  channel  is  removed,  as  the 
Popish  clergy  are  declared  (he  thinks  with  too  little  ceremony  and  too  uni- 
versally) to  be  no  ministers  of  Christ.  Nay,  all  that  appears  externally 
necessary,  according  to  that  episcopal  formulary,  to  constitute  a  minister,  is 
the  choice  of  some  congregation.  Far  from  believing  one  particular  form  of 
ecclesiastical  polity  to  be  sacred  and  inviolable,  they  say.  Art.  21,  Of  Gene- 
ral Councils,  tSfc,  "  Not  that  we  think  any  policy  and  any  order  of  cere- 
monies can  be  appointed  for  all  ages,  times,  and  places." 

Dr.  Cooke  is  careful  frequently  to  remind  us  that  some  of  the  ancient  au- 
thors on  whom  he  relies  were  martyrs.  Is  nothing  due  then  to  the  testimony 
of  the  venerable  martyrs  of  that  mother  church  from  which  his  own  recently 
adopted  communion  claims  birth  ?  What  was  the  language  of  Rogers,  who, 
though  with  a  wife  and  ten  children,  whom  he  was  not  even  suffered  to  see, 
refused  a  pardon  at  the  stake  from  those  successors  of  the  apostles  and  vice- 
gerents of  Christ,  the  then  bishops  of  England  T  What  was  the  language 
of  Bishop  Hooper,  whom  the  popish  bishops,  Christ's  true  and  supreme  mi- 
nisters by  Divine  appointment,  according  to  Dr.  C,  brought  also  to  the  stake  ] 
and  who  was  used  so  barbarously  in  the  fire,  that  his  legs  and  thighs  were 
roasted,  and  one  of  his  hands  dropped  off,  before  he  expired  ; — a  man  not  in- 
ferior to  Ignatius  himself  in  piety,  or  in  sufferings  for  Christ  ]  When  brought 
before  their  prelatical  judges,  they  were  asked  whether  they  would  submit  to 
the  church  or  not.  But  they  answered  that  they  looked  on  the  church  of 
Rome  as  antichristian*  Bishop  Hooper,  in  particular,  while  in  prison,  and 
about  two  months  before  his  martyrdom,  wrote  a  letter  dated  December  11, 
1554,  in  which  are  these  expressions  : — "  With  us  [in  England]  the  wound 
which  Antichrist  [the  pope  or  the  popish  church]  had  received  is  healed, 
and  he  [the  pope]  is  declared  head  of  the  church,  who  is  not  a  member  of  i^."f 
How  little  idea  had  this  venerable  episcopal  martyr  of  the  English  church 
that  his  own  ministerial  and  episcopal  character  depended  wholly  on  a  spi- 
ritual pedigree  which  could  be  traced  in  a  direct  line  to  what  he  believed  to 
be  "  Antichrist !" 

It  is  granted  that,  for  the  sake  of  discipline  and  order  in  the  settlement 
of  churches,  it  is  proper  to  limit  the  power  of  administering  the  sacraments 
of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  to  fewer  hands  than  preaching.  But  if  it 
be  required  to  make  up  and  pronounce  y?-o?n  Scripture  a  candid  judgment  of 
what  is  valid  in  cases  of  exigence,  or  what  is  essential  to  the  being  of  a 
church,  then  can  it  be  doubted  that  even  any  private  Christian  was  war- 
ranted in  the  apostolical  age,  and  is  still  if  he  can,  to  convert  a  sinner  from 
the  error  of  his  ways,  and  to  leach  him  the  principles  of  the  Christian  faith  1 
Yet    were  not  these  two  important  parts  of  the  apostolical  commission  ■?— 


*  Burnol's  Hist.,[Al)riil^mont,]  vol.  ii,  p.  272. 
j  Neal's  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i,  p.  139. 


182  EPISCOPAL  CONTROVERSY  REVIEWED- 

Would  it  be  amiss  to  say  that  they  were  even  the  most  important  1  Our 
Lord  himself  made  proselytes  and  instructed  them,  but  baptized  none, — 
leaving  this  merely  ministerial  work  to  his  disciples.  Peter  was  sent  to  open 
the  door  of  faith  to  Cornelius  and  his  family ;  but  the  charge  of  baptizing 
them  he  intrusted  entirely  to  the  Christian  brethren  who  attended  him. 
Ananias,  a  disciple,  was  employed  to  baptize  Paul.  And  Paul  says  himself 
of  his  own  mission,  that  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
gospel ;  denoting  thereby  that  baptizing,  compared  with  preaching,  though  a 
part,  was  but  an  inferior  and  subordinate  part,  of  his  charge.* 

In  the  epistles  attributed  to  Ignatius,  the  phrase  "  the  church  lohich  is  in 
Syria''''  occurs  twice.  This,  Dr.  Campbell  thinks,  has  much  the  appearance 
of  an  anachronism,  which  often  betrays  the  hand  of  the  interpolator.  Nothing, 
he  observes,  can  be  more  dissimilar  to  the  dialect  which  prevailed  in  the 
apostolic  age,  and  which  continued  to  prevail  in  the  second  century.  Ex- 
cept when  the  church  denoted  the  whole  Christian  community,  it  meant  no 
more  than  a  single  congregation.  When,  through  the  increase  of  converts, 
a  bishop's  parish,  indeed,  came  to  contain  more  people  than  could  be  con- 
tained in  one  congregation,  the  custom  continued  of  still  calling  his  charge 
a  church,  in  the  singular  number.  But  it  was  not  till  after  the  distinction 
made  between  the  metropolitan  and  the  suffragans,  which  was  about  a  cen- 
tury later,  that  this  use  originated  of  calling  all  the  churches  of  a  province 
the  church  (not  the  churches)  of  such  a  province.  After  the  rise  of  the  patri- 
archal jurisdiction  the  application  of  the  term  was  extended  still  farther.  All 
that  was  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  archbishop  as  patriarch  was  his 
church. ■]" 

That  the  early  fathers  entertained  no  such  ideas  of  the  essential  charac- 
teristics of  a  Christian  church,  as  Dr.  Cooke  has  asserted,  out  of  Ignatius,  is 
plain  from  a  striking  passage  in  Tertullian,  who,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  explicitly  asserted  that  "  three  persons,  though  laymen,  make  a 
church.''^  His  words  are,  "  Sed  ubi  tres,  ecclesia  est,  licet  laici:^''  referring 
in  the  same  place  to  a  known  practice  even  down  to  his  time,  viz.,  that 
when  none  of  the  clerical  order  could  be  had,  (that  is  to  say,  in  the  exigence 
of  necessity,)  even  private  Christians  celebrated  the  eucharist,  and  baptized, 
and  served  as  priests  to  themselves.  "  Ubi  ecclesiastici  ordinis  non  est  con- 
sessus,  et  offers,  et  tinguis,  et  sacerdos  es  tibi  solus^ 

Any  person  acquainted  with  the  Latin  language,  and  a  stranger  to  the 
later  disputes  about  sacerdotal  orders,  would  hardly  conceive  the  passage 
quoted  from  Tertullian  susceptible  of  any  other  interpretation  than  that  above 
given.  Yet  pains  have  been  taken  by  persons  who,  as  Dr.  Campbell  ob- 
serves, cannot  conceive  a  kingdom  of  Christ  that  is  not  a  kingdom  of 
priests,  totally  to  disguise  it.  Tertullian's  argument,  in  the  place  cited, 
obviously  is,  that  in  case  of  necessity  even  laymen  have  the  right  of  priest- 
hood in  themselves ;  and  this  argument  he  confirms  by  the  reference  above 
mentioned  to  the  known  and  uncensured  practice  of  his  time.  The  argu- 
ment in  this  view  was  to  his  purpose  ;  in  any  other  it  was  utterly  futile. — 
By  the  way,  this  passage  serves  also  to  show  how  widely  different  were  the 
views  of  Tertullian  and  the  Christian  church  of  that  age,  from  those  now  en- 
tertained and  asserted  by  Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  regard  to  the  Christian  sacr^r 
ments  in  exigences  of  necessity. 

♦  See  Campbell,  Eccles.  Hist.,  pp.  C2,  C3. 
t  Ihi'l.,  pp.  100,  101. 


EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY   REVIEWED.  183 

That  these  principles  are  sanctioned  hy  the  earliest  practice  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  in  the  apostolical  age,  may  be  deduced  from  the  testimc\ny  of 
Hilary,  also  a  distinguished  deacon  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  ia  the  fourth 
century,  who  openly  and  without  censure  asserted  that  "  Postquam  omnibus 
locis  ecclesiae  sunt  constitutje,  et  ofRcia  ordinata,  aliter  composita  res  est, 
quam  cceperat ;  primum  enim  omnes  doccbant,  et  omnes  baptizabant,  quibus- 
cunque  diebus  vel  temporibus  fuisset  occasio."  "  Ut  ergo  cresceret  plebs, 
et  multiplicaretur,  omnibus  inter  initia  concessum  est  et  cvangelizare,  et 
baptizare,  et  scripturas  in  ecclesia  explanare."  Comm.  on  P^ph.  iv.  ["  After 
churches  were  established  in  every  place,  and  offices  ordained,  things  were 
managed  otherwise  than  at  the  beginning  :  for,  at  first,  all  used  to  teach, 
and  all  to  baptize,  on  whatever  days  or  seasons  there  might  be  occasion." — 
"  That  the  people  might  increase  and  be  multiplied,  it  was  at  first  granted  to 
all  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  to  baptize,  and  to  explain  the  Scriptures  in  the 
chaTch."—Ed.] 

I  do  not  say  that  this  is  proper  where  there  are  organized  churches  and 
regular  pastors ;  but  that,  when  there  are  not,  in  circumstances  correspond- 
ing in  effect  to  those  of  the  primitive  church  at  the  period  alluded  to,  the 
principle  is  still  the  same  ;  and  that,  consequently,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
principles  of  the  gospel,  or  the  allowed  practice  of  the  apostolical  age, 
making  it  unlawful,  but,  on  the  contrary,  much  to  justify  it.  This  was  ma- 
nifestly the  opinion  of  the  Christians  who,  "  except  the  apostles,"  were  .scat- 
tered abroad  in  consequence  of  the  persecution  which  arose  against  the 
church  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  Stephen's  martyrdom  :  for  they  "  went 
everywhere  preaching  the  word."  The  apostles,  it  will  be  observed,  re- 
mained in  Jerusalem.  All  the  rest  went  everywhere  preaching  the  word  : 
and  yet  there  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  in  the  history  that  the  apostles, 
though  so  recently  commissioned  directly  by  their  Lord,  denounced  this 
course,  or  manifested  any  such  spirit  of  exclusiveness  as  high-church  bigots 
now  exhibit. 


[THE   END,] 


Date  Due 


WML'^iM       A     Si 


